S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, tenanted counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 4 and Sri R. K. Jain, learned counsel representing the res pondent No. 5. 2. Perused the record. The petitioners feel aggrieved by an order dated 10-7-1995, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the respondent No. 2 whereunder he granted recognition to a Committee of Management with Parvez Ahmad as its Manager Superseding the order dated 11-4-1994, whereunder retaining the financial powers with the District Inspector of Schools, recognition had been granted to a Committee of Management with Mohammad Imran as its Manager for discharged the administrative duties untill further orders by the High Court and signatures of Mhohammad Imran had been attested as the Manager of Committee of Management. 3. From the materials brought on the record, it appears that the Com mittee of Management which had been elected on 13-10-1991 and was the last recognised Committee of Management had informed the District Inspector of Schools vide its communication dated 31-8-1994 that its tenure secured under the approved scheme of administration was going to expires on 13-10-1994 and the general body had decided to hold the fresh elections on 25-9-1994 for which an observer may be appointed so that the election scheduled for 25-9-1994 may be held. 4. It further appears that on the aforesaid letter, Smt. Shanti Singh, who was at that time holding the post of District Inspector of Schools passed an order informing the President of the Committee of Management that she will visit the college in the aforesaid connection on U-9-1994. This order is claimed to have been passed on 8-9-1994. 5. It further appears that Smt. Shanti Singh, the District Inspector of Schools passed the order dated 11- 9-1994 to which a reference has already bee? made above, wherein it was indicated that an election of the Committee of Management was held in her presence on 11-9-1994 and noticing this fact in her order, a conditional recognition was granted in terms referred to herein-above. 6. It further appears that Smt. Shanti Singh ceased to hold the office of the District Inspector of Schools with effect from 12th November, 1994 on account of her transfer. 6. It further appears that Smt. Shanti Singh ceased to hold the office of the District Inspector of Schools with effect from 12th November, 1994 on account of her transfer. It may be noticed that the meeting of the general body scheduled for being held on 25-9-1993 was preponed after the visit of the aforesaid District Inspector of Schools in the college premises on 11-9-1993 itself as under the order passed by her on 8-9-1993 it was only indicated that she will be visiting the college premises on llth September, 1993. It is therefore obvious that this preponement of the date fixed for holding the meeting was done after her visit in the college premises on llth September, 1993 itself. 7. From the record, it further appears that the District Inspector of Schools who succeeded Smt. Shanti Singh, on coming to know of the afore said fact issued a notice on 6-12-1994 requiring Sri Imran, Parvez Ahsan Ahmad and Dr. Jabir to appear before his on 20-12-1294 alongwith the records of the college and the list of the members of the general body together with the renewed registration certificate of the society and Bye-Laws and approved scheme of administration so that the fresh election be held in accordance with law and the educational institution may be run in an orderly manner. In the aforesaid order, it was also indicated that certain papers were sought to be relied upon which were prepared in a fraudulent manner and appeared to have been fabricated. 8. The aforesaid order passed by the District Inspector of Schools was challenged by the Committee of Management with Mohammad Imran as its Manager and Mohammad Imran in his capacity as Manager by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40606 of 1994. This Writ Petition was dis missed in limine on 19-12-1994 observing that it was open to the petitioner to satisfy the District Inspector of Schools about the genuineness of the election held on 11-9-1994 and if the District Inspector of Schools found any merit in the petitioners claim then. it was expected that the said District Inspector of Schools shall decide the matter in petitioners favour otherwise not. it was expected that the said District Inspector of Schools shall decide the matter in petitioners favour otherwise not. It was therefore that the District Inspector of Schools vide the impugned order dated 10-7-1995 passed an order recognising the Committee of Manage ment with Parvez Ahmad as its Manager that the election claimed by him appeared to have been held in accordance with the provisions contained in the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 9. The District Inspector of Schools in his impugned order has taken into consideration various facts and circumstances after appraising the evi dence and materials on record and has observed that there was no order passed by Smt. Shanti Singh recognising the Committee of Management alleged to have been elected on 11-9-1993 indicating thereby that the photostat copy sought to be relied upon by the petitioners was not genuine. Further, the letter dated 11-9-1994 was also found to have been manufactured. The District Inspector of Schools also recorded a finding that the documents relied upon by the petitioners had been fabricated after Smt. Shanti Singh has ceased to hold the office of the District Inspector of Schools and were ante-dated. The District Inspector of Schools also came to the conclusion that the alleged election claimed to have been held on 11-9-1994 was not in accordance with the approved scheme of administration. 10. This Court in its decision in the case of Committee of Management Inter College, Nanapar v. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur, rendered by a Division Bench and reported in 1979 ALJ 33, relying upon an earlier Division Bench decision of this Court, had clarified that although there is no provision under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act or the Regulations framed thereunder conferring power on the District Inspector of Schools of reviewing an order according approval under Section 16-E of the Act and an exception to the said rule had however, been made which was to the effect that the District Inspector of Schools could recall or revoke his order if it is obtained by mistake, misrepresentation or fraud but this could be done only after an opportunity of hearing or explanation has been given to the person who was to be affected by such an order. It seems tome that the aforesaid prin ciple can safely be extended to the proceedings of the nature as under consideration whereunder the District Inspector of Schools proceeds to recall an order granting recognition to a Committee of Management. 11. It may be noticed that on 11-7-1995, the Deputy Director of Educa tion had issued a demi official confidential letter to the District Inspector of Schools with reference to the latter dated 22-11-1994 sent by the District Inspector of Schools requesting for the appointment of the Prabandh Sanchalak. In this letter, the Deputy Director of Education had expressed the view that on the one hand the District Inspector of Schools was going to consider the management dispute wherein four persons have put their claims and on the other hand request was being made for appointing a Prabandh Sarichalak in view of the dispute which indicated self contradictory proceeding therefore in case a dispute in regard to management has been declared it would not be proper to hear the matter as it would be contrary to the provisions of the Act. With the aforesaid observation, the Deputy Director of Education called for a report alongwith evidence so that appro priate proceedings may be taken. 12. The aforesaid letter dated 11-7-1993 appears to have been issued in ignorance of the order passed by this Court dated 19-12-1994. The District Inspector of Schools was bound to act in accordance with the observations made by this Court in its judgment and order dated 19-12-1994. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the nature of the controversy and the principle to which a reference has been made in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned proceedings could not be held to be vitiated on* account of the observations made in the letter of the Deputy Director of Education dated 11-7-1995. 14. Considering the facts noticed in the impugned order and the fact that the said order has been passed after affording opportunity to the peti tioners of being heard and further considering the implications arising under the order of this Court dated 19th December, 1994 referred to hereinabove, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage, while exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present case does not appear to be fit one for the intervention of the equity. 15. The present case does not appear to be fit one for the intervention of the equity. 15. However, considering the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Shandar Hussain v. The Deputy Director of Education, (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38185 of 1993, decided on 29-10-1993), the petitioner can approach the Deputy Director of Education of the region concerned for the redressal of his grievances against the impugned order. In this view of the matter in case, the petitioners submit a representation before the Deputy Director of Education of the concerned region, setting forth their grievances against the impugned order within two weeks alongwith a certified copy of this order in that event the said authority shall consider and dispose of the aforesaid representation of the petitioners after affording an opportunity to the affected parties expeditiously. The District Inspector of Schools, the respondent No. 2 shall also submit his report alongwith the evidence which shall be taken into consideration while disposing of the representation of the petitioners. 16. It will be open to the said authority to pass an order as an interim measure which is found appropriate (or protecting the interest of the educa tional institution. 17. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed subject to the directions indicated hereinabove. Petition dismissed. .