N. L. GANGULY, J. The petitioner prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to complete the election process initiated by the notice published on 15-12-1994 and also for a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to attest the petitioners signature as duly elected Manager. Another prayer was made for revoking the order appointing O. P. No. 4 as Authorised Controller. A writ of quo warranto has been prayed for calling upon O. P. No. 4 to show-cause and explain under what authority he was working as Authorised Controller of Keshav Ram Arya Adarsh Balika Higher Secondary School, Azamgarh. A prayer has been added by amendment application or issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 31- 12-1995, Annexure 19 to the writ petition. 2. The petition was heard on 25-4-1995 and 26-4-1995 and an interim order was passed directing "that the respondents shall maintain status quo as on today". The petitioner was directed to produce a certified copy of the order before the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh and photostat copies of the certified copy of the order before the other educational autho rities O. Ps. in the petition. 3. It is pleaded that the institution Keshav Ram Arya Adarsh Balika Higher Secondary School, Azamgarh is approved and recognised institution under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The Scheme of Administra tion of the institution is approved. The term of the elected office bearers of the Committee of Management is three years and the outgoing Committee of Management has to get the fresh election held within a period of three months, falling which the Deputy Director of Education has the power to appoint Authorised Controller for managing the affairs of the institution and get the fresh election of Committee of Management held and constituted. 4. It is said that the term of the last Committee of Management came to an end in October, 1993. The Office bearer of the said Committee of Management wrote to O. P. No. 2 for appointing an observer for conducting the election according to law. The O. P. No. 2 Dy. Director of Education by his order dated 6- 12-1993 directed O. P. No. 3, DIOS, to supervise him self or through Assistant District Inspector of Schools or any other person to supervise the election to be conducted on 15-12-1993 as scheduled. The O. P. No. 2 Dy. Director of Education by his order dated 6- 12-1993 directed O. P. No. 3, DIOS, to supervise him self or through Assistant District Inspector of Schools or any other person to supervise the election to be conducted on 15-12-1993 as scheduled. The D. D. E. along with his order dated 6-12-1993 had forwarded a list of 31 members. One Pramod Gandhi alleging himself to be the manager of the Committee of Management submitted another list of members before O. P. No. 2, which was also sent by him to O. P. No. 3 with the letter dated 13-12-1993. Since there were two different lists of members the DIOS expressed his inability to get the election conducted on 15-12-1993. The Deputy Director of Education directed the DIOS to enquire about the validity and correctness of the list of members and then to proceed with the election at the earliest. 5. The election was not held within the stipulated period. According to Section 7 of the Act and the Scheme of Administration the Regional Deputy Director of Education 1st by his order dated 31-5-1994 appointed Sri Hira Ram Bharti, Associate District Inspector of Schools as Authorised Con troller for finalising the election in four months period after examining the list of members. Sri Hira Ram Bharti after enquiry finalized the list of members on 28-10-1994 giving a list of 29 members and also sent the list to the Assistant Registrar of Societies and Chits. The Assistant Registrar had finalised the list giving 24 names of members. The Tahsildar Lalganj was directed to supervise and get the election conducted as per Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. 6. Sri Sudama Singh as President of the Committee of Management of the institution filed writ petition No. Nil of 1994 before this Court. The said petition was finally disposed of on 20-5-1994 with the following order :- "the petitioner have challenged the order dated 5th March, 1994 passed by Assistant Registrar for holding election. He has authorised Tahsildar Lalganj, district Azamgarh as Election Officer purporting to exercise power under Section 25 (1) of Societies Registration Act. He has recorded a finding that the period of three years has expired. The Registrar is empowered to hold election under Section 25 (2) of the Act. He has authorised Tahsildar Lalganj, district Azamgarh as Election Officer purporting to exercise power under Section 25 (1) of Societies Registration Act. He has recorded a finding that the period of three years has expired. The Registrar is empowered to hold election under Section 25 (2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further admitted that Tahsildar has been directed to hold election on the basis of voters list supplied to- him by the Assistant Registrar which is incomplete. In case any particular objection is raised with regard to any member, the Tahsildar may also consider the same and after considering such objection he may hold the election in accordance with law. ae writ petition is accordingly finally disposed of. Sd. S. N. 20-5-1994. " It has been pointed out that the list of members has not been published by the Tahsilder after the High Courts order. 7. The respondent No. 4 by his report had rejected the list of members submitted by Sri Pramod Gandhi. The list prepared by O. P. No. 4 was approved by the D. I. O. S. on 28-10-1994. Again Sri fpramod Gandhi claiming to be the Manager of the Committee of Management filed objec tion before the D. D. E. to the list of members given by O. P. No. 4. Again O. P. No. 4 by his report dated 15. 11-1994 submitted list of 29 members. The objection and the list given by Sri Pramod Gandhi was rejected. 8. The election was directed to be scheduled as published in the news paper dainik Deval dated 17-12- 1994. Nominations were filed on 28-12-1994, scrutinised on 28-12-1994. Election was held on 1-1-1995 between 10. 00 a. m. to 1. 00 p. m. Before holding the election police arrangement was made and notices were sent to the members regarding election pro gramme by O. P. No. 4. On the date fixed for election i. e. 1-1-1995 O. P. No. 4 refused to come himself and supervise the election. He had appoint ed Sri Surendra Prasad, Accountant of the BIOS Office to supervise the election. 9. The petitioner stated that he has been declared elected as Manager of the Committee of Management and Sri Sudama Singh as the President besides Sri Hari Das Arya as Vice President and other office bearer. He had appoint ed Sri Surendra Prasad, Accountant of the BIOS Office to supervise the election. 9. The petitioner stated that he has been declared elected as Manager of the Committee of Management and Sri Sudama Singh as the President besides Sri Hari Das Arya as Vice President and other office bearer. The election held under the supervision of Sri Surendra Prasad Accountant was witnessed and attested by the Principal of the institution. The peti tioner wrote to the D. D. E. on 16-1- 1994 to attest the signature of the peti tioner as Manager of the Committee of Management and remove the Autho rised Controller since election had already taken place. The D. D. E. / RIGS, O. P. No. 2 did not attest the signature of the petitioner in spite of letters by him nor the authorised controller removed. The D. D. E. and RIGS, O. P. No. 1 and 2 have expressed their inability in the matter since the authorised controller had not given any information about the holding of the election. The DIOS also was approached by the petitioner, who by his order dated 31-12-1994 had cancelled the election process taken in pursuance of the order dated 15-12-1994. He had cancelled the election process on the ground that the Assistant Registrar, Societies and Chits, did not provide opportunity of personal hearing to a number of persons, who were deprived of participation from the election, before passing of that order, which was in violation of Rule of Natural Justice. 10. The petitioners learned counsel Sri Rakesh Pandey submitted that D. D. E. O. P. No. 1 had appointed pi P. No. 4 as authorised controller and the DIOS had no power or jurisdiction to sit in appeal ever the order of the D. D. E. or scrutinise and adjudicate the validity of the list of members eligible and competent to participate in the election. Sri Rakesh Pandey further submitted that O. P. No. 4 was under legal obligation and duty bound to comply with the order of the D. D. E. and conclude the election within four months as directed. Instead of doing so O. P. No. 4 in collusion with O. P. No. 3 attempted to disrupt and stall the election with mala fides and arbitrary manner. Instead of doing so O. P. No. 4 in collusion with O. P. No. 3 attempted to disrupt and stall the election with mala fides and arbitrary manner. Sri Pandey submitted that the DIOS was not com petent to extend the term of the authorised controller beyond four months afte D. D. Es order. The election process was cancelled without opportunity or notice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following rulings : (1) B. S. M. Samiti (Mahasabha) Roorkee district Hardwar v. District Magistrate, Hardwar, 1995 (2) UPLBEC 1182 : 1995 (2) LBESR 531 (All) ; (2) Committee of Management Nonapur Inter College, Kanpur v. D. I. O. S. Kanpur, 1980 UPLBEC 209 (DB) ; (3) Committee of Management, Inter College Karanda, Ghazipur v. D. D. E,:v Region, Varanasi, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1420 ; (4) Raj Narain Singh v. D. l. O. S. Jaunpur, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 2019 ; (5) Hirdaya Narain Rai v. D. D. E. V Region, Varanasi, 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1232 ; 5,12 (6) Basant Prasad Srivastava v. State \of V. P. , 1993 (2) UPLBEC 1333; (7) Mirtunjay Singh v. Vice Chancelier, Purvanchal University, 1995 (3) UPLBEC 1363 ; (8) Committee of Management, Uchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, New-waria v. D. D. E. , V Region, Varanasi, 1992 (l)UPLBEC 327. 11. The learned Standing Counsel accepted notice for O. P. s No. 1 to 4. An application for impleadrnent of Sri Pramod Gandhi as O. P. No. 5 in the petition with a counter affidavit has been filed. An application for vacating the interim order passed by this Court has also been filed. Although a copy of the application and counter affidavit was served on 10-7-1995 by Sri Pramod Gandhis learned counsel Sri Prakash Padia and Dr. R. G. Padia on the petitioners counsel but the petitioners counsel has not filed any, rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit nor Sri Padia pressed his application for itnpleadment or vacating the interim order. Perhaps it was assumed that when the application for impleadment was moved, it shall be allowed. However, since Pramod Gandhi has put in appearance and he appears to be a necessary party, whom the petitioner has not im-pleaded; hence he was directed to be added as O. P. No. 5 in the writ petition. Perhaps it was assumed that when the application for impleadment was moved, it shall be allowed. However, since Pramod Gandhi has put in appearance and he appears to be a necessary party, whom the petitioner has not im-pleaded; hence he was directed to be added as O. P. No. 5 in the writ petition. No time for filing rejoinder affidavit has been asked by the petitioners counsel ; but later on the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. 12. The learned Standing counsel has not filed any counter affidavit. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Pramod Gandhi, who claimed himself to be the Ex-manager of the Committee of Management of the institution. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. Learned counsel for the parties and the standing counsel contented that the writ petition be finally decided on the basis of the material already available on record. The Standing Counsel has neither prayed for time for filing any counter affidavit nor filed any such counter affidavit. He also joins the request of the learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the writ petition. Hence I proceed to decide the writ petition finally without admitting the same. 13. Sri Pramod Gandhi in his counter affidavit pleaded that the pro cess of the election has already been taken and is in progress which should not to be interfered or disturbed according to the settled law. The scheme of Administration and the order of the BIOS, list of 29 members of the general body of the society given by the DIOS have been annexed with the counter affidavit. Sri Pramod Gandhi, O. P. No. 5,. claimed that at present there are 51 members including 34 members, who have deposited the requisite amount for membership. The list of new members and the amount of membership fee paid by them has also been appended. The case set up by O. P. No. 5 is specifically that the Associate DIOS appointed as authorised controller was wholly wrong in proceeding with the election process on the basis of 29 members. It was objected that the list finalised by the authorised controller was prepared without giving opportunity of personal hearing to the real concerned persons. A representation dated 26-12-1994 was received on behalf of the aforementioned members, who claimed to have become members. It was objected that the list finalised by the authorised controller was prepared without giving opportunity of personal hearing to the real concerned persons. A representation dated 26-12-1994 was received on behalf of the aforementioned members, who claimed to have become members. By representation to the D. D. E. they requested to cancel further proceedings for election by the authorised controller. The O. P. submitted that the DIOS had rightly realised the mistake committed by the authorised controller in approving the list of 29 members. The O. P. submitted that the DIOS was satisfied that the authorised controller was wrong in proceeding with the election with a list of members, which was not correctly prepared and passed orders cancelling the proposed election on 31- 12-1995, The O. P. pointed out that the High Court in writ petition No. Nil of 1994, which was disposed of by the order dated 25-9-1994, Annexure CA-12 to the counter affidavit, observed that "in case any particular objection is raised with regard to any member, the Tahsildar may also consider the same and after considering the objection proceed to hold the election in accordance with law. "the entire argu ment of the learned counsel for the O. P. is that DIOS was perfectly correct in cancelling the election process taken by the authorised controller as he was satisfied that there was a genuine doubt and dispute about the members of the Committee, who were to participate in the election. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case reported in 1980 UPLBEC 209, Committee of Management, Nonpar Inter College, Kanpur v. D. I. O. S. ,kanpur, the Division Bench was pleased to hold that the DIOS only a limited jurisdiction to pass a tentative administrative order. The DIOS in the present case was already pleased to pass orders for appointing an authorised controller for holding the election, who actually proceeded on the basis of the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner sub mitted that the administrative decision taken by the DIOS was not open for review. It was not shown nor pleaded that the order of appointment of authorised controller was obtained by fraud or misresentation or passed in contravention of principle of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner sub mitted that the administrative decision taken by the DIOS was not open for review. It was not shown nor pleaded that the order of appointment of authorised controller was obtained by fraud or misresentation or passed in contravention of principle of natural justice. Sri Rakesh Pandey relied on the cases reported in 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1420-Committee of Management Inter Karanda, Ghazipur v. D. D. E. , V Region, V. aranasi, 1992 (1) UPLBEC 327-Committee of Management, Uchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Newaria v. D. D. E. , V Region, Varanasi. The facts and the legal questions considered in the said decisions are concerning the disputes in respect of the rival Committee of Management adjudicated under Section 16- A (7) of the Inter mediate Education Act. Thus these authorities are not relevant for the present case. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1232-Hirday Narain Rai v. D. D. E. , V Region, Varanasi this Court was pleased to hold that the High Court would not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution with the election process. Fn case the election is held not in accordance with law or the persons, who are not entitled to vote, are permitted to cast their votes or the persons entitled to vote are excluded, it is open to the aggrieved person to challenge the same before the appropriate Forum. The DIOS was provided with the list of 29 members for holding the election by the authorised controller, who was proceeding with the direction for holding election and the interference in the process of election was caused on account of the representation of O. P. Pramod Gandhi mainly on the ground that the list of members prepared was faulty and genuine members not included in the list. In view of the decision of this Court it was submitted that Pramod Gandhi, if aggrieved with the process of the election, could challenge the election before the appropriate Forum and the DIOS was not legally correct in interfering or passing orders in between the process of election was going on. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1993 (2) UPLBEC 1333-Basant frasad Srivastava v. State of U. P. was pleased to hold that when once the election process starts, it must come to its logical conclusion. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1993 (2) UPLBEC 1333-Basant frasad Srivastava v. State of U. P. was pleased to hold that when once the election process starts, it must come to its logical conclusion. Once it comes to its logical conclusion by declaration of result of the election, the aggrieved person may challenge the election by filing election petition or civil suit in accordance with law. In such a proceeding the election may not be set aside if the alleged illegality or irregularity has not materially affected the result of the election. Approach to Court at intermediate stages in the election is bound to result in an office either remaining vacant or being occupied by person whose entitlement to hold the office has ceased. Neither is a happy situation. The Division Bench while making the above observations relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1928 Madras 1271-Desi Chettiar v. Chinnasami Cherttar. The view of the Madras High Court in the case reported in AIR 1928 Madras 1271 (supra) has been approved by the Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1952 SC 64 -N. P. Pannuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and AIR 1975 SC 2140 -Nanhoo Mai v. Hira Mal. 16. It is not unknown that these days the educational authorities have been influenced by local people of the places, who want to take over power in the management of the institutions for obvious reasons. The persons, who are interested in becoming bearers and members of the Managing committees of the educational institutions these days are not genuinely interested in the welfare and betterment of the educational institutions but for their personal gains and ulterior motives. The persons seeking to become members or continue to be office bearers of such Manag ing Committees resort to all short of means to continue and remain in power of the Managing Committees. In doing-so such persons influence and procure orders from the educational authorities from time to time which gives rise to litigation and uncalled for controversy before the educational authorities and writ petitions. The educational authorities are also to be blamed for their conduct and action in most of such cases where there is dispute between such rival claimants. In doing-so such persons influence and procure orders from the educational authorities from time to time which gives rise to litigation and uncalled for controversy before the educational authorities and writ petitions. The educational authorities are also to be blamed for their conduct and action in most of such cases where there is dispute between such rival claimants. The educational authorities consider themselves to be independent and above law, who, without caring for the orders of the superior authority, pass orders which create complications and give rise to writ petitions between the rival claimants. In the present case it is abundantly clear that the process of election had started and list of members given by the DIOS was made the basis by the authorised controller, who proceeded with the election process and concluded practically the election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management. The representation, of the contesting O. P. Pramod Gandhi about the incorrectness of list of members regarding ex clusion of certain persons from becoming members raised such question which were not to be entertained once the election process had already started. Pramod Gandhi was aggrieved, he could have waited and challeng ed the result of election of the Committee of Management before the appro priate Forum i. e. the Civil Court. This Court in 1994 (3) UPLBEC 2019- Raj Narain Singh v. D. I. O. S. , Jaunpur, has been pleased to hold that after the election held when papers were received by the office of the DIOS relating to the result of the election, it was the duty of the DIOS to pass appropriate orders either approving or disapproving the election held. It has been held in the said decision that the correctness and genuineness of signature, receipt of papers, validity of members are not to be adjudi cated by the DIOS. 17. From the facts and circumstances narrated above it is abundantly clear that the election process had started and actually the election was held under the supervision of the representative the accountant sent by the authorised controller on the date of the election. In the said election members had participated and the proceeding was witnessed by the Principal of the College. The DIGS was not justified in passing orders during the process of the election, which was being conducted by the authorised controller. His action was unjustified and uncalled for. In the said election members had participated and the proceeding was witnessed by the Principal of the College. The DIGS was not justified in passing orders during the process of the election, which was being conducted by the authorised controller. His action was unjustified and uncalled for. The petitioner has levelled allegations against the DIOS and the authorized controller about mala fides, who were interested in delaying the proceeding for the election. This aspect may not detain the Court in deciding the present writ petition. 18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the Standing Counsel I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed with a direction that the DIOS shall pass appropriate orders about approval or disapproval of the Committee of Management elected in the election conducted by the authorised controller within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order. The O. P. Pramod Gandhi or any other person, if aggrieved by the election held by the authorised controller, may seek such other legal remedy before the appro priate civil court for adjudication, about the validity of members of the Committee of Management, if so advised. Neither the DIOS nor the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to enter into the controversy about the genuineness, correctness and validity of list of members. 19. The petition is allowed with costs. Petition allowed. .