D. K. SETH, J. In. the case by an order dated 17-7-1992 ; passed in writ petition No. Nil of 1992 it was directed that the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun shall take over the management of the institution immedi ately and will alone be entitled to operate the accounts maintained in the name of Sri Mahatma Gandhi Uchchatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Kudari, Jalaun. Subsequently by another order dated 10-1-1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 28206 of 1992 the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun was directed to hold the election of the office bearers and members of the Com mittee of Management within a period o one month from the date a certified copy of the said order is produced before him in accordance with the provisions of scheme of Administration and shall handover the Management of the Institution to the Committee of Management elected/ constituted in accordance with law simultaneously with the declaration of the result. 2. Now the dispute crop up with regard to induction of 31 new life members by the District Inspector of Schools. It was contended by Mr. V. B. Singh appearing with Mr. Bhaghal for the petitioners that the District Inspector of Schools was only managing the institution and not a substitute for the managing committee. The induction of member is pro vided in the scheme of management in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Clause (3) which provides two kinds of members only namely life and general mem bers. Referring to clause 6 for Constitution of Society in Paragraph 4 he points out that a member can be made by the Managing Committee and in case of refusal in that event the same be placed before General Body, He draws my attention to the fact that all the member a were sought to be inducted as new members in July, 1995. Relying on sub-clause 5 (Ghah) of Clause 17, he submits that the Bank draft for becoming a member is to be deposited with the Treasurer who would deposit the same in the Mainte nance Accounts of the Institution, but in the present case the Bank Draft has not been deposited in the Maintenance Accounts of the Institution. 3. Mr. Sankatha Rai for the respondents submitted that the autho rised controller was appointed by the District Inspector of Schools by reason of the order dated 17-7-1992 passed in writ petition Nil of 1992. 3. Mr. Sankatha Rai for the respondents submitted that the autho rised controller was appointed by the District Inspector of Schools by reason of the order dated 17-7-1992 passed in writ petition Nil of 1992. The District Inspector of Schools had taken over the Management of the Institution and therefore he had all the power of the Committee of the Management. He further contends that according to the Scheme of Management there is no embargo of one years membership prior to acquir ing eligibility for casting vote by a life member as is provided for an ordinary, general members. He further contended that once the election process start the same cannot be interfered with. According to him the election process has started by publication of the list of members. He relied on the case of Basant Prasad Srivastava and another v. State of U. P. and others reported in 1993 (2) UPLBEC 133 and in the case of Committee of Management of Sri Prachar Vidhyapith Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. District Inspector of Schools, Etawah reported in 1995 (1) UPLBEC 52. He also relied on the case of Hridaya Nath Rai v. Deputy Director of Education reported 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1233 and contends that once the election process starts the same cannot be postponed or interfered with. The same is only said to challenge by way of election petition or by a suit. 4. In the present case the question is not related to the election process. It is confined to the question whether 31 new members inducted by the District Inspector of Schools can be so inducted by him, is the contention of Mr. Singh. It appears, according to him that if the District Inspector of Schools do not have such power to induct such member in that event the induction of such members cannot be said to be done within the election process. He relies on a judgment of Division Bench (unreported) dated 21-5- 1987 given in writ petition No. 10666 of 1987 where on the facts that the District Inspector of Schools had taken a view that he was appointed for the purpose of managing the affairs of the Institution but he was not substituted for the Managing Committee or the General Body of the Association was held as correct view. He also relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Damayanii Naranga v. Union of India, AIr 1971 SC 966 and contended that no member can be inducted except with the consent of the members of the voluntary Association as that of the present one. 5. It is an established principle that when there is no validly elected Managing Committee or when there is doubt or dispute with regard to the eligibility or entitlement of a particular group of body to manage a society particularly when it relates to run an educational institution in order to obviate imposes or void created thereby authorised controller is appointed or sometimes the District Inspector of Schools is allowed to carry on the Management of the Institution as a stop gap measure with a view to hold the election and hand over the charge. It is also an accepted proposition that such authorised controller or the District Inspector of Schools has to hold the election according to the scheme of administration governing the Association or the Institution. 6. There is no doubt that the authorised controller ran never be treated as substitute for the Management Committee or the general body of an Association or Institution. The authorised controller is not appointed within the scheme of the Administration of the Institution. He is appointed by reason of statutory provisions only to fill up the void and restore the Management of the Institution according to the scheme of administration by directing him to hold the election. The authorised controller is not given power by reason whereof he can induct members in an association of persons or being about changes in the structure of the association much to the charge in and prejudice of the members. 7. The authorised controller, who are directed to hold the election according to the Scheme of Administration by order dated 10-10- 1995, was never empowered under the Scheme of Administration to induct members. An authorised controller can never be authorised to take upon himself the function of an association with an element of democracy. He simply manages the administration as stop gap measure. He can never be empowered to usurp the decision asking process or power with regard to he basic structure of the association. He act only as manager. Such a power would be completely opposed to the concept of an association of persons. He simply manages the administration as stop gap measure. He can never be empowered to usurp the decision asking process or power with regard to he basic structure of the association. He act only as manager. Such a power would be completely opposed to the concept of an association of persons. An authorised controller if enter upon such a domain in that event it would amount to encroaching upon the freedom of association of which he is not a member. Then again the way the members have been inducted also does not show that these members were taken in the normal course of functioning. All the members have come in a group for particular purpose. By an order dated 21-9-1995 which is Annexure VII to the writ petition the District Inspector of Schools had already settled the list of members containing 17 names. Thereafter he had issued another letter on 25-11-1995 by which he has shown 31 new members. This induction of members is not a part of the election process. It is a part which is to be played by the general body or the Management Committee who according to the authorised controller is entitled to induct members. The District Inspector of Schools was autho rised to hold the election on the basis of members of the Institution. The process of election would commence with the holding of the election with the existing members which he had finalised on 21-9-1995. 8. Be that as it may in the present case Mr. Rai submits that the election has already been held and the result has already been declared. Therefore the contention of Mr. Sankatha Rai, counsel for the respondent that this court cannot interfere with the election process once started cannot be sustained. Election having been over the same is now open to scrutiny. 9. The proposition that an election if commenced the process cannot be stopped and cannot be interfered with is an established proposition and it need no repeatation as has been held particularly in the case cited by Mr. Rai. The said submission now has become redundant since the result of the election has already been declared. 10. In the present case the question can be decided without any further evidence only by the decision as to the entitlement of the District Inspector of Schools to induct members. Rai. The said submission now has become redundant since the result of the election has already been declared. 10. In the present case the question can be decided without any further evidence only by the decision as to the entitlement of the District Inspector of Schools to induct members. It is, therefore, would not be desir able to refer the parties to Civil Court now. 11. Therefore on the basis of material placed before this Court when it had been found that the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to induct new members as has been done in this case, the election in which those new members admittedly have taken part, cannot be sustained and therefore the same is quashed. The District Inspector of Schools shall hold fresh election on the basis of the members already on record without allow ing the 31 new members to participate in the election. This process should be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the District Inspector of Schools. The petition is thus disposed of. 12. There will however no order as to costs. Petition disposed of. .