JUDGMENT : S.P. SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. Perused the record. 3. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31629 of 1996 has been filed by two Petitioners. The Petitioner No. 1 is the alleged Committee of Management. Sukh Nandan Inter College, Math Mohammadpur, Mau through its Manager Deepan Singh Chauhan and the Petitioner No. 2 is Deepan Singh Chauhan himself. 4. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32274 of 1996 has been filed by Hriday Narain Chaubey alleging himself to be the Member of the general body of Sukh Nandan Inter College, Math Mohammadpur, Mau. 5. The Petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31629 of 1996 have prayed for the quashing of an order dated 13.9.1996 passed by the District Inspector of Schools whereunder while accepting the recommendations of the election officer relating to the proceedings of election held on 4.9.1996 for constituting a Committee of Management for running and managing the Sukh Nandan Inter College, Math Mohammadpur, Mau, the said Committee with Deo Narain Singh as President and Upendra Singh as its Manager was recognised as the duty elected Committee of Management and the signatures of Sri. Upendra Singh as Manager were attested. It may be noticed that under the aforesaid order dated 13.9.1996, the District Inspector of Schools had rejected the proceedings relating to an election, the papers pertaining to the proceedings whereof had been submitted by Mahadevanand seeking recognition of the Committee which was shown to be elected on 4.2.1996 with office bearers different from those which had been granted recognition. While rejecting the aforesaid claim, the District Inspector of Schools had observed that the papers submitted by Mahadevanand relating to the alleged election dated 4.9.1996 indicated an effort motivated to create a dispute which was not genuine. 6. Besides the above relief, the Petitioners in this case have also prayed for a direction requiring the District inspector of Schools to refer the matter in regard to the validity of the Committee of Management for decision to the Deputy Director of Education u/s 16A(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act. They have also prayed for a direction requiring the District Inspector of Schools not to permit the Manager recognised under the impugned order to function as such. 7. The Petitioner in the other case being Civil Misc. They have also prayed for a direction requiring the District Inspector of Schools not to permit the Manager recognised under the impugned order to function as such. 7. The Petitioner in the other case being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32274 of 1996 has prayed for the quashing of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 13.9.1996 referred to herein above. Besides the aforesaid relief, this petition has also prayed for a direction requiring the Joint Director of Education to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak to manage the affairs of the institution and to hold fresh elections for constituting a Committee of Management according to the provisions contained in the scheme of administration approved for the College. He has also prayed that, the Committee of Management and the Manager recognised under the impugned order be directed not to interfere in the affairs of the institution. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, and the nature of the controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petitions, it was found appropriate to hear both the writ petitions together. Accordingly, the learned Counsel appearing in both the writ petitions have been heard and these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 9. The provisions contained in the scheme of administration approved for running and managing the Sukh Nandan Inter College, Math Mohammadpur, Mau, in question, stipulate that the tenure of a Committee of Management had to be of a period of three years on the expiry whereof the office bearers could continue as such only for the next one month whereafter they were to be deemed to have ceased to hold the office. The provisions contained in the aforesaid scheme of administration clearly provide that in case newly elected Committee of Management does not take over charge of the office within one month after the expiry of its tenure, the said tenure will be deemed to have come to an end and a person nominated by the Regional Deputy Director of Education as the Prabandh Sanchalak shall be deemed to have taken over charge of the office of the Committee of Management with all the rights vesting in a Committee of A.W.C. 27 Management. The Prabandh Sanchalak shall put in office a newly elected Committee of Management at the earliest and in case of a dispute between rival Committees of Management, he will act in accordance with the decision of the aforesaid nominating authority and will install in office that Committee of Management which is recognised under the Judgment and order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. The provisions contained in the approved scheme of administration also regulate the procedure in regard to the manager in which the meeting for the election is to be called and the manner in which the election proceedings are to be conducted. 10. In the present case, the last election of the Committee of Management had been held on 2.5.1993. The Committee of Management elected in the aforesaid election had been duty recognised by the District Inspector of Schools. The Committee of Management which had been recognised held an election on 2.5.1996. This election was. however, not found to be in accordance with law by the District Inspector of Schools who refused to recognise the same vide his order dated 20.6.1996. Under the same order, he required the outgoing Committee of Management to hold a fresh election after sending the list of valid members of the general body which list had been found to be correct and approved at the time of the earlier election. The Election Officer sent the papers in regard to the election of the Committee of Management with Deo Narain Singh as Adhyaksh and Upendra Singh as Manager which were received by the District Inspector of Schools along with the report of the Election Officer on 6.9.1996. Another report dated 4.9.1996 in regard to an election held on the same date alleging that a Committee of Management with Sri. Deepan Singh Chauhan as its Manager had been elected was also received by the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools, however, granted recognition to the Committee of Management with Sri. Deo Narain Singh as President and Upendra Singh as Manager vide the impugned order which has already been referred to herein above. 11. Deepan Singh Chauhan as its Manager had been elected was also received by the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools, however, granted recognition to the Committee of Management with Sri. Deo Narain Singh as President and Upendra Singh as Manager vide the impugned order which has already been referred to herein above. 11. The materials brought on record indicate that on 12.8.1996, a representation to which Mahadevanand Puri as well as Hriday Narain Chaubey were signatories, apart from various other persons, had been submitted before the Joint Director of Education praying that the election proceedings scheduled for September 3 and 4, 1996 be stayed and a Prabandh Sanchalak be appointed with a direction to get tire election held within a specified period. 12. Prior to the sending of the aforesaid representation, Deepan Singh Chauhan along with several other persons had submitted an application dated 5.8.1996 before the District Inspector of Schools requesting that the recommendation for appointment of a Prabandh Sanchalak be sent to the Regional Deputy Director of Education for appointment of a Prabandh Sanchalak so that the said Prabandh Sanchalak may hold the election in accordance with law for constituting the Committee of Management. 13. From a perusal of the application/representation dated 5.8.1996 as well as 12.8.1996, it is apparent that on the own showing of Mahadevanand as well as Deepan Singh Chauhan, there could be no occasion for holding an election on 4.9.1996 under the Presidentship of Sri. Mahadevanand Puri in the meeting wherein Deepan Singh Chauhan is said to have taken part and claimed to have been elected as Manager. It may be noticed that these persons were themselves asserting that assert from the Prabandh Sanchalak, no other person could either Initiate the proceedings for the election or hold the election in view of the period of three years and one month having expired resulting in the automatic cessation of the holding of the office of the office bearers of the Committee of Management which has been elected on 2.5.1993 which had been recognised by the District Inspector of Schools. In such a circumstance, they could not be heard to say that a meeting for holding the election was held under the Presidentship of Mahadevanand himself m which Deepan Singh Chauhan had been elected as office bearer in an election held on 4.9.1996. In such a circumstance, they could not be heard to say that a meeting for holding the election was held under the Presidentship of Mahadevanand himself m which Deepan Singh Chauhan had been elected as office bearer in an election held on 4.9.1996. It may further be noticed that none of these persons claimed to be the office bearers of the Committee of Management which had been elected on 2.5.1993 and could not in any manner be deemed to have been authorised under the provisions of the approved scheme of administration to either initiate or conduct the proceedings for the election for electing a Committee of Management in accordance with the procedure provided therefore in the scheme of administration approved for the College. 14. It has been strenuously urged that in the presence of rival claims put up by the different Committees of Management coming forward with a case of their having been duty elected, the only course open to the District Inspector of Schools was to refer the dispute for decision to the Regional Deputy Director of Education as provided for under the provisions contained In Section 16A(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act. It seems to me that while considering the question relating to the granting or withholding of recognition to a Committee of Management, it is incumbent upon the District Inspector of Schools to ensure that the dispute in regard to the claim for recognition as a duty elected Committee of Management authorised to run and manage the Institution is a real dispute which requires a decision. He is not to act merely as a transmitting office or transmitting agency which Is required to transmit the papers received by it showing election of two different Committees of Management claiming recognition as duty elected Committee of Management for running and managing the College, to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. He has to apply his mind to find out whether the claims are genuine or sham or ex facie fake or manufactured for the purpose of giving a show of dispute. He has to apply his mind to find out whether the claims are genuine or sham or ex facie fake or manufactured for the purpose of giving a show of dispute. In case the District Inspector of Schools comes to the conclusion that ex facie the rival claim is liable to be ignored being based on fictitious proceedings or proceedings initiated or conducted by persons who have no authority for the purpose at all or the proceedings relating to the election stand vitiated on account of some patent defect or error in following the procedure prescribed under the approved scheme of administration, it is always open for him to refuse cognizance of such an election as it is not expected that he will make a wholly uncalled for reference. It is only in those cases where there is a genuine and a real dispute and two views are possible that the District Inspector of Schools has to stop at that stage and refer the dispute for decision to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. The rationale of the enquiry which the District Inspector of Schools is required to make in this connection is obvious because the law does not contemplate rank-outsider to meddle with the management of the institution. 15. In case, therefore, ex facie it appears that the office bearers of a rival Committee of Management could not be treated to be validly induced members or could not be deemed to have any right to participate in any election or hold any office in the institution or the facts brought on record indicate that their claim has an origin in fraud or misrepresentation and their possession or control of the affairs of the institution, if any, cannot be taken to be in accordance with the law indicating their status to be that of rank-trespassers such claim is liable to be ignored altogether. Faced with such a situation, while striking a just balance between the institutional interest and the public interest, the proper course to be adopted by the District Inspector of Schools would be to ignore such a claim outright, as such a claim apparently has to be treated to have been set forth only with a motive to create a dispute for the name's sake which cannot be held to be genuine or real necessitating reference to the Deputy Director of Education for decision as contemplated under the provision contained in Section 16A(7) of the Act. 16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. In its decision in the case of Krishna Dutt Bajpai v. District Inspector of Schools, Rai Bareli, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in 1985 UPLBEC 551, relying upon the observations of a Full Bench of this Court in Aley Ahmad Abdi v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and Ors. 1976 AWC 731 , the Division Bench had pointed out that the scheme of administration approved for running and managing the institution cannot be regarded as a piece of subordinate legislation like the Rules, Regulations, Statutes and Ordinances which an Act empowers the Government for the statutory bodies under the Act to make or frame. It was emphasised in that case that the writ petition would not, therefore, lie merely for enforcing the scheme of administration through the Petitioner may seek his remedy, through a civil suit. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances brought on record, the District Inspector of Schools had recorded a finding in the impugned order that the claim of the Petitioner based on the election dated 4.9.1996 had been raised only for the purpose of creating a dispute which could not be taken to be a real or genuine dispute. It has also been found that the aforesaid claim was a motivated one and the alleged Committee of Management appeared to have been constituted in a meeting for the election in which meeting members other than those who had been recognised as member of the general body had participated. It has also been found that the aforesaid claim was a motivated one and the alleged Committee of Management appeared to have been constituted in a meeting for the election in which meeting members other than those who had been recognised as member of the general body had participated. The findings recorded by the District Inspector of Schools are based on an appraisal of evidence on record and do not appear to suffer from any such infirmity which may justify any interference therein while exercising the extraordinary Jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. It has been lastly contended that the impugned order stands vitiated in law as it had been passed without affording an opportunity to the Petitioners of being heard. In the counter-affidavit, it has been asserted that there was no provision of giving personal hearing by the District Inspector of Schools and the District Inspector of Schools had considered the documents filed by the Petitioners. It has also been asserted that the Petitioners did not even demand any opportunity in regard to hearing as claimed and they cannot raise a grievance in this regard. It is contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there has not been any violation of the principles of natural justice. 19. On the facts and circumstances brought on record, it is apparent that the proceedings for the election had been initiated within time by the outgoing Committee of Management. However, the proceedings for the aforesaid election were not found to be in accordance with law and the outgoing Committee was required by the District Inspector of Schools lo proceed afresh and ultimately the outgoing Committee had held the election on 4.9.1996. Even according to the provisions contained in the scheme of administration approved for the College, the election should have taken place by 2.6.1996. In the present case, the outgoing Committee had held the election on 4.9.1996 subsequent to the Issuance of the letter dated 22.6.1996 of the District Inspector of Schools refusing to recognise the earlier election held on 2.5.1996. In the aforesaid circumstances, the ratio of the decision of this Court In the case of Committee of Management of janta Inter College and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Education and Ors. C.M.W.P. No. 36146 of 1095, decided on 26.8.1996, clearly stands attracted. In the aforesaid circumstances, the ratio of the decision of this Court In the case of Committee of Management of janta Inter College and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Education and Ors. C.M.W.P. No. 36146 of 1095, decided on 26.8.1996, clearly stands attracted. In the aforesaid decision, it was indicated that the stipulation in the scheme of administration approved for the College to the effect that the management of the Institution would be taken over by a person appointed as Prabandh Sanchalak in the event of failure to constitute the Committee of Management within the stipulated period was suggestive of the fact that the Committee would not automatically cease to be functional and would continue to be so until replaced by Prabandh Sanchalak. It seems to me that a situation leading to creating a vacuum has to be avoided. There may be a case where there is delay in the appointment of a Prabandh Sanchalak. If the aforesaid view is not adhered to, it will be apparent that during the interregnum there will be no Committee of Management to run and manage the institution. Any delay either on the part of the outgoing Committee of Management or on the part of the Deputy Director of Education in the matter of bringing into existence a machinery to run and manage the institution, whether it be the newly elected Committee of Management or a Prabandh Sanchalak, has got to be avoided in public interest or even the institutional interest. In such a circumstance, therefore, if the outgoing Committee is taken to be continuing to be functional, as indicated in the decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Janta Inter College (supra), the election held by the outgoing Committee of Management during the interregnum referred to hereinabove, if found to be in accordance with law, is liable to be accepted for the administrative purposes specially when the District Inspector of Schools himself acquiesces in the continuance of the outgoing Committee of Management to remain functional in the absence of any order from the Deputy Director of Education appointing a Prabandh Sanchalak for running and managing the institution superseding the Committee of Management. In the present case, on the facts found, the District Inspector of Schools does not appear to have committed any illegality in preventing the continuation of the vacuum and accepting the election held by the outgoing Committee of Management for administrative purposes as envisaged under the Act and Regulations framed thereunder which decision is always subject to the result of a regular suit fifed by the party aggrieved by such an order. 20. It may further be noticed that as has already been indicated hereinabove, Deepan Singh Chauhan, Mahadevanand Puri and Hriday Narain Chaubey had already submitted representations to the District Inspector of Schools on 5. 8.1996 and 12.8.1996. Sri. Mahadevanand had also sent all the papers relating to the election of the Committee of Management relied upon by him for consideration before the District Inspector of Schools. In the aforesaid circumstances, all the facts sought to be relied upon by the Petitioners had been brought to me notice of the District Inspector of Schools much before the passing of the impugned order. The Apex Court in its decision in the case of S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Others, AIR 1981 SC 136 , had indicated that while non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary yet where on the admitted or undisputable facts only one conclusion is possible, the Court may not issue the writ to compel the observance of natural Justice not because It is not necessary to observe natural justice but because the courts do not issue futile writs. 21. On the facts and circumstances brought on record in this case, the question about failure to observe the principle of natural Justice is not of much consequence. In this connection, it may be emphasised that in matters where observance of the principle of natural justice would have made no difference and the admitted or undisputable or irrefutable facts speaking for themselves lead to a situation where only one conclusion is possible under the law, the issuing of a writ to compel the observance of natural justice is not at all called for. 22. In view of my conclusions indicated hereinabove, the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners are totally devoid of merit and are not acceptable at all. 23. 22. In view of my conclusions indicated hereinabove, the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners are totally devoid of merit and are not acceptable at all. 23. In the result, no justifiable ground having been made out warranting an interference by this Court while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India these writ petitions are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.