D. K. SETH, J. In these two writ petitions, the same order dated 24th March, 1995 has been challenged by two sets of petitioners. In Writ Petition No. 10168 of 1995 one Dina Nath Pandey sought to espouse the cause of Janta Shikasha Niketan Inter College, Duberi, Mau, (hereinafter referred to as the said College) seeking to represent the Committee of Management of the said College as Manager thereof with one Sri Yogendra Singh as President all of whom have joined together as petitioners. Whereas one Mangal Deo Pandey has sought to espouse the case of the said College and represented the Committee of Management as Manager of the said College. The facts of the case are common in both the peti tions which would be apparent from the description thereof given herein after. 2. The case as made out in writ petition No. 10168 of 1995, inter alia, is that the said College is a recognised Institution under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and is run by a Committee of Management appointed by the General Body of 352 members according to the Scheme of Administration. The last election had taken place on 4th October, 1992 and the office bearers were elected on 28th February, 1993 while all the papers relating thereto were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools, DIGS for short, on 3rd March, 1993 but no order having been passed by the DIGS, the said Mangal Deo Pandey had moved Writ Petition No. 19132 of 1993 in which by order dated 26th May, 1993 (Annexure 4), the DIGS was directed to take appropriate steps on the basis of the papers submitted before him and permit the petitioner to continue by way of an interim arrangement whereas Mangal Deo Pandey had claimed that the election had taken place on 14th April, 1993 by 54 members and the DIOS had decided the case in favour of Mangal Deo Pandey by order dated 14th September, 1993. The said order was challenged in Writ - Petition No. 36698 of 1993 in which by order dated 8th February, 1995, the DIOS had directed to refer the dispute to the Regional Deputy Director Education, RDDE for short. In Special Appeal No. 735 of 1995 filed by Mangal Deo Pandey by order dated 2nd March, 1995, the RDDE was directed to decide the validity of the election. In Special Appeal No. 735 of 1995 filed by Mangal Deo Pandey by order dated 2nd March, 1995, the RDDE was directed to decide the validity of the election. Upon the matter being so referred, the RDDE, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 24th March, 1995 (Annexure 5) rejected the validity of both the Committee of Management and appointed DIOS, Mau to hold fresh election within 3 months and directed that the list of members used in the election held on 4th October, 1992 and 14th April, 1993 shall be considered as valid and 7 life members may also be taken as members of the General Bodies. 3. In Writ Petition No. 15099 of 1995, it has been contended that the Registration of the Society Janta Shiksha Niketan, Duberi, Mau, under the Societies Registration Act was valid till 1995. The Society appointed Sri Mangal Deo Pandey as Manager of the Committee known as Sahayak Samiti of the said Trust running several Institutions including Janta Shiksha Niketan Inter College, Duberi, Mau which is governed by a separate Scheme of Administration duly approved by the DDE which provided for the management of the Institution by the Committee of Management being an executive body elected by the General Body. It was contended that the Trust in an entirely different body having 352 members who elect a Sahayak Smiti which manages the affairs of the Trust and the Sahayak Samiti has no concern with the management of the entire College and the members of the General Body of the Trust are not automatically members of the General Body under Scheme of Administration of the entire College. The elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were periodi cally held in 1985, then in 1988 and the same was due in 1991 when due to some confusion and dispute, the meeting of the Trust was convened and the members exercising power under sub-clause (1) of clause 6 of the of the Scheme of Administration passed a resolution that since no election was held in 1991, therefore, the said Mangal Deo Pandey shall continue to function as Manager of the Institution. The Scheme of Administration provides the Trust with special function in the event non-holding of elections of the Committee of Management. The Scheme of Administration provides the Trust with special function in the event non-holding of elections of the Committee of Management. Since no election had taken place, the DIOS by letter dated 27th January, 1993 (Annexure 4-A) asked Mangal Deo Pandey to get the election held since the term of the earlier Committee had expired. Thereupon on 14th April, 1993, election was convened in the presence of all the 54 members in which the Executive Com mittee was appointed and the proceeding of the said election was forwarded to the DIOS. Since the said 352 members are members of the Trust and not of the General Body for the purpose of running the Institution under the Scheme of Administration, by order dated 14th September, 1993 (Annexure 6), recognition was granted to the Committee of which Mangal Deo Pandey was the Manager. It is contended that the rival Committee claimed to have held election on 4th October, 1992 and 28th February, 1993 when there was no provision for holding two elections for one Committee in the Scheme of Administration. The election held on 4th October, 1992 was that of the Society and not of the Committee of Management of the College. The impugned order dated 14th September, 1993 which was chal lenged by Mangal Deo Pandey in Writ Petition No. 36689 of 1993 was stayed by order dated 27th March, 1993 till 15th October, 1993 against which the resultant Special Appeal was disposed of by order dated 2nd March, J995 holding the dispute as one under Section 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and directed the RDDE to decide the dispute relat ing to the election of the Committee of Management after hearing both the parties. 4. Mr. S. N. Srivastava in support of Writ Petition No. 10168 of 1995 on behalf of Mangal Deo Pandey contends that no election had taken place after the Scheme of Administration was approved in 1988 and, therefore, Mangal Deo Pandey cannot claim to be the Manager of the said Institution nor he could have held any election as such of the Committee of Management after the expiry of the life of the earlier Committee of Management as admitted by Mangal Deo Pandey in para graph 4 of Writ Petition No. 15099 of 1995. He further contends that Mangal Deo Pandey had claimed to have held the election in the presence of 54 members who were enrolled on 22nd March, 1993 and 23rd March, 1993 while the decision to hold election by Mangal Deo Pandey was taken on 14th March, 1993 and then again the subscription of membership was deposited in the personal account of Mangal Deo Pandey and not in the account of the said College. Mr. Srivastava had challenged the said order dated 24th March, 1995 (Annexure 5) so far as it rejects the election held on 4th October, 1992 and claims recognition of the election of the Committee of Management held on 4th October, 1992 and 28th February, 1993. On the other hand, Dr. R. G. Padia in support of Writ Petition No. 15099 of 1995 attacks the entire order dated 24th March, 1995 so far as it interferes with the functioning on Mangal Deo Pandey as Manager and directing the DIOS to work as authorised Controller and holding fresh election. 5. However, in the course of his argument, Mr. S. N. Srivastava altered his position and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there being rival claims with regard to the election which was directed to be decided pursuant to the order dated 2nd March, 1995 passed by this Honble Court in Special Appeal No. 735 of 1995, the RDDE had rightly decided the same that there was no valid election and, therefore, had rejected both the claims sought to be established by both the parties and had correctly appointed the DIOS as authorised Controller and had correctly directed the DIOS to hold the election. 6. Mr. R. G. Padia, on the other hand, very strenuously argued that the scope of the decision as directed in the said order dated 2nd March, 1995 passed in Special Appeal No. 735 of 1995 clearly indicated that the RDDE was directed to decide the dispute in terms of Section 16-A (7), the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Therefore, the impugned decision dated 24th March, 1995 is to be tested on the anvil of the interpretation of Section 16-A (7) as given by this Honble Court in various decisions. Therefore, the impugned decision dated 24th March, 1995 is to be tested on the anvil of the interpretation of Section 16-A (7) as given by this Honble Court in various decisions. According to him, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 16-A (7), the RDDE has to see as to who is in executive management of the Institution and while deciding the same though he cannot incidentally go into the question of election but still he can neither convert himself to an Election Tribunal or a Civil Court for the purpose of deciding the election dispute. He further contends that an election dispute cannot be looked into under Section-16-A (7) except incidentally. The expres sion incidentally with relation to Section 16-A (7) has been interpreted to mean that the RDDE is concerned only to find out that a rank outsider is not allowed to run the show. He cannot go into the question of validity as such. If while deciding such question, the election is considered as the main issue then the same is wholly without jurisdiction. In support pf his claim, he relied on the decisions Km. Leela Paulus v. R. D. D. E. , Garhwal Region, Garhwal, 1995 UPLBEC 241 : 1995 (1) LBESR. 110 (All) ; Sankatha Prawd Srivastava v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur, 1985 (2) UPLBEC 751 ; Maharshi Sukhdeo Vidyalaya Shukartal (Junior High School) Morna, Muzaffarnagar v. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Meerut, 1985 (2) UPLBEC 1053 ; Committee of Management, Kisan Uchchatar Madhyantik Vidyalaya v. District Inspector of Schools, Agra, 1985 (2) UPLBEC 1128 ; Committee of Management, Sarvodaya Inter College, Deoria v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1019 ; Committee of Management, Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalya v. Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi, 1992 (1) UPLBEC 327 ; Committee of Management, Sanhitkari Inter College, v. Deputy Director of Education, 1994 (1) UPLBEC 590 ; Committee of Management, Shahid Mangal Pandey Inter College v. State of U. P. , 1995 (2) UPLBEC 1348 ; and Committee of Management, Sri Ram Niranjan Inter College v. Deputy Director of Education, 1995 (2) UPLBEC 928. 7. The contention as raised by Dr. 7. The contention as raised by Dr. Padia is that while deciding the question under Section 16-A (7) the question of election can be gone into incidently, only to find out as to whether a rank outsider is not permitted to run the show and that the RDDE while deciding the same can not treat the question of election as main issue and convert itself into an Election Tribunal or a Civil Court to such extent. There is no doubt about the above proposition and the ratio decided in the decision cited by Dr. Padia has laid own in on uncertain terms the said proposi tion as correct interpretation of Section 16-A (7) which runs as follows :- " (7) Whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an Institution, persons found by the enquiry as is deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may, for purposes of this Act, be recognised to constitution until a court of com petent jurisdiction directs otherwise : Provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub- section, afford reason able opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing. Explanation.-In determining the question as to who is actual control of the affairs of the institution the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties, the Scheme of Administration approved under sub-section (5) and other rele vant circumstances. " 8. The Explanation provides the scope of enquiry for deciding the actual control which lays down (1) as to who has control over the funds (2) who has control over the Administration (3) who receives the income from the properties (4) provision of approved Scheme of Administra tion and other relevant circumstances. Though Dr. Padia had vehemently argued that here the RDDE had travelled beyond the scope of the ambit of Section 16-A (7) and had exceeded its jurisdiction in going into the question of membership and the validity of the election which amounts to converting the proceedings into that of an Election Tribunal or to the extent of a civil court. I am unable to agree with the conten tion of Dr. I am unable to agree with the conten tion of Dr. Padia to such an extent that in the present case the RDDE had usurped the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal or that of a civil court. In my view, the RDDE has decided the question of election incidently on the basis of the provision contained in the approved Scheme of Administration and other relevant circumstances. 9. Now the phrase "other relevant circumstances" indicates that the RDDE while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A (7) shall not shut its ever to such other facts which leads to hold that the Institution is being managed by a rank outsider. The conditions as contained in the Explanation to Section 16-A (7) for deciding the said dispute for taking note of control over the funds and administration and the receipt of income does not conclusively oust the jurisdiction of the RDDE to look into the Scheme of Administration and other relevant circumstances. It was never meant that the control over the fund, adminis tration and receipt of income conclusively clinches the issue. It does not mean that ,as soon these three conditions are fulfilled the RDDE is not required to look into any other things. In my view, it is the totality of the view that has to be taken. There might be cases where a rank outsider for some reason or the other may be in. actual control of the fund administration and receipt of income and in such cases, the RDDE is not bound to recognise it to constitute the Committee of Management when he himself finds that the person managing the same is rank outsider on the basis of the provision in the Scheme of Administration and other relevant circumstances. If the RDDE finds on the basis of the provision of the Scheme of Administration and other relevant circumstances that the person in actual control of the affairs is a rank outsider, in that event, he may decide the same on the basis of the Scheme of Administration and other relevant circumstances. By no stretch of imagination, such a decision can be said to be without jurisdiction nor does it convert the RDDE into an Election Tribunal or a Civil Court. By no stretch of imagination, such a decision can be said to be without jurisdiction nor does it convert the RDDE into an Election Tribunal or a Civil Court. If it ex facie shows that the election has been held through a group of persons who were enrolled after the election was declared and the subscription of whom is not deposited in the account of the Institution, in that event, it cannot be said that there was a valid election of an Institution which prior to the inclusion of those members and Managing Committee to be elected by such members over these 54 members who were there since long. Such a determination made on the basis of the record does not amount to a determination as contemplated to be an election dispute. 10. In para 4 of Writ Petition No. 15099 of 1995 it has been averred : "4. That the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were periodically held in 1985, then in 1988 and the same was due in 1991 when some confusion and dispute was raised, with the result a meeting of the Trust was convened and the Trust exercising its powers under sub-clause (1) of clause 6 of the Scheme of Administration (Annexure-1 to writ petition) passed a resolution that since no elections have been held in 1991, therefore, the petitioner No. 2 shall continue to function1 as Manager o; the Institution. It is in the scheme of administration that the Trust has been provided with special functions in the event of non-holding of elections of the Committee of Management. However, the elections were not held with the result the District Inspector of Schools wrote a letter to the petitioner No. 2, asking him to get the elections held as the term of the earlier Committee had expired. " 11. However, the elections were not held with the result the District Inspector of Schools wrote a letter to the petitioner No. 2, asking him to get the elections held as the term of the earlier Committee had expired. " 11. The said averment clearly shows that after 1988 no election was held and that Mangal Deo Pandey was asked to continue as Manager and he was also asked to hold election by letter dated 27th January, 1993, The Scheme of Administration of all the Intermediate Colleges have since been made uniform and admittedly the life of a Managing Committee havine been limited to three years and one months grace having been allowed to told the election, after the expiry of such life and on the expiry whereof it having been provided that election is to be held through an Authorised Controller, any thing contrary to the Scheme of Administration and any action taken contrary to such provision would be void and nonest in the eye of law. The alleged election having been taken in April 1993 which is long beyond three years from 1988, it cannot be said that the said Mangal Deo Pandey though he was in actual control could do so in view of the Scheme of Administration without being authorised by any validly elected Committee of Management. Even then it is said that Mangal Deo Pandey claims to have been elected by 54 members who were enrolled on 22nd and 23rd March, 1993 cannot ^claim that he was permitted or authorised to continue as Manager or the Committee of Management though the life of the said Committee of Management elected in 1988 had expired which is an admitted position whom he does not recognise now. The contention of Dr. Padia, therefore, is wholly fallacious to the extent that the life of the Managing Committee, according to the Scheme of Administration is five years and the last election had taken place in June, 1988 and, therefore, the life of the Managing Committee would be valid till 1993 before which the election had taken place in April 1993 Such a contention cannot be reconciled on the face of the averment made in paragraph f of Writ Petition No. 15059 of 1995 quoted above. 12 Therefore, in my view, the order dated 24th March, 1995 impugned in these two Writ Petitions does not trench upon the juris diction of an Election Tribunal or a Civil Court in the facts and circumstances of the case while deciding the question of membership and the validity of the election which has really been done incidently, since ex facie, as has been observed earlier, it appears that Mangal Deo Pandey is a rank outsider who could not have held the election on the basis of the said 54 members enrolled after the declaration of the election. 13 In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. However, before parting with this case, consi dering the well being of the institution, I direct the RDDE and the DIGS to complete the process of election as contemplated in the order impugned within the period mentioned therein which is to be counted from the date a certified copy of the order or its operative part of this order is produced before the concerned respondent and not later than a period of six months from this date. Both the petitioners in both the cases are hereby directed to produce a certified copy of the order or its operative part before the RDDE and the DIGS within a period of four weeks from date. 14. In view of the observations made above, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, there will be no order to costs. 15. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges -within one week. Petitions dismissed. .