S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the proceedings under Section 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, whereunder the Committee of Management elected on 14-8-1994 with Madan Kumar vasishtha as its Manager had been granted recognition after rejecting the claim of Bal Kishan Agrawal terminating The arrangement of single operation of the accounts of the college maintained under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1991, the petitioners have now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the said order the direction to the respondents not to interfere in their functioning duly constituted managing committee of Sri Devatary Adarsh Inter College Karnvash, district Bulandshahr. 2. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing No. 1,2 and 3 as well as Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 4. 3. On the joint request of the learned Counsel for the parties, considering the nature of the dispute involved in the case, this writ petition is being disposed of finally. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has in support of the writ petition urged that the impugned order stands vitiated in law on account of its having been passed in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice, adopting a procedure contrary to law resulting in prejudicing their interest. The contention is that as is apparent from the impugned order itself, the Deputy Director of Education had fixed 4th January, 1995 for the hearing of the case on which date the respective parties had to substan tiate their claims. However Sri Madan Kumar Vashistha, who claimed recognition of the Committee of Management alleged to have been elected on 14-8-1994 filed documentary evidence in support of his claim on 10-1-1995 and certain additional material was produced later on which material though filed subsequent to the date fixed for hearing that is 10-1-1995 was utilised against the petitioners without affording them any opportunity of leading evidence in rebuttal. It has also been urged that a large number of documents were annexed alongwith the application dated 5-1-1995 which had been filed on 5-1-1995 by Madan Kumar Vasishtha, the copies whereof were not made available to the petitioners and accepting the additional material brought on record, the Deputy Director of Educa tion proceeded to pass the impugned order basing his findings on the said materials. The contention is that in such a situation the additional material brought on record subsequent to the hearing of the case and that too behind the back of the petitioners without giving them an opportunity of leading evidence in rebuttal thereof was highly prejudicial to their interest and further has resulted in manifestly erroneous conclusion render ing the order in question unsustainable in law. 5. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondents have not disputed this fact that the additional material had been allowed to be brought on record by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and was also utilised against the petitioners. It is also not disputed that the copies of the additional material were not made available to the petitioners. However, what has been urged is that on the date fixed for hearing, the Regional Deputy Director of Education had allowed the parties an oppor tunity to file additional evidence. 6. It has however, not been disputed that the additional evidence which was allowed to be brought on record had not been brought to the notice of the petitioners. 7. This Court in its decision in the case of Ram Adhar Shastri v. Deputy Director of Education, 1987 UPLBEC 14, had disapproved such a procedure as adopted in the instant case by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. It was observed that filing of documents should have preceded the hearing and reversal of such a process results in grave error of procedure which vitiates an order passed by adopting such a procedure. This Court in its aforesaid decision had also clarified that since it cannot, be assessed as to what extent the Regional Deputy Director of Education was influenced with the evidence filed later on, the order could no be maintained even on other materials ignoring the additional material brought on record. 8. This Court in its aforesaid decision had also clarified that since it cannot, be assessed as to what extent the Regional Deputy Director of Education was influenced with the evidence filed later on, the order could no be maintained even on other materials ignoring the additional material brought on record. 8. In its another decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the of Committee of Management Vaidik Higher Secondary Schools v. District Inspector of Schools, 1993 (2) UPLBEC 934, this court had observed that the rules of natural justice can operate in areas not covered by any law validly made and are evolved to ensure fair adjudication whenever rights of an individual are affected. They are aimed to secure fair play in action and prevent miscarriage of justice. One of the first principles of natural justice is that you must not permit one side to use means of influencing a decision which means are not known to the other side. It has to be emphasised that any person even if represented at any enquiry who is to be adversely affected by any decision therein should not.- be left in the dark as to the risk of the finding being made depriving him any opportunity to adduce evidence or material of probative value which, had it been placed before the decision maker, might have deterred him from making the finding even though it cannot be predicated that it cannot inevitably have had that result. Observation to this effect occurring in the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Mohan v. Air Newazealand Ltd. , 1984 (3) All ER 201 at 210, clearly indicate that mere knowledge of the enquiry proceedings or presence at the hearing is not enough. The person who is going to be adversely affected must be informed of all the material which may be ultilised against him so that he may have the opportunity to adduce the additional evidence or material of probative value which might deter the enquiring authority from making the finding as indicated above. The person who is going to be adversely affected must be informed of all the material which may be ultilised against him so that he may have the opportunity to adduce the additional evidence or material of probative value which might deter the enquiring authority from making the finding as indicated above. As a matter of fact the Apex Court in its decision in the case of State Bank of India v. D. C. Aggarwal, JT 1992 (6) SC 673 ; (1993) 1 UPLBEC 25 (SC) has clearly held taking action against a person on the basis of certain material or evidence without bringing the same to the notice of such person is violative of procedural safeguards and contrary to fair and just enquiry. 9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is impossible to approve the impugned order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. 10. The writ petition accordingly succeeds in part. The impugned order dated 6-3-1995 is quashed with a direction to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, the respondent No. 1 to reconsider the matter after hearing both the parties affording opportunity to them to file evidence in rebuttal. The reference shall be decided within two months from the date a copy of the order is produced before the said authority. 11. Till the dispute is decided by the Regional Deputy Director of. Education as directed above, the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr shall carry on the management of the Institution. 12. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. .