Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to me that the present writ petitioners made a prayer in this writ petition, for a direction to the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 to withdraw, recall or otherwise forebear from giving effect to the impugned order dated 10.1.97 bearing No.IS/M-4/252-70 issued by the Inspector of Schools, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong as in Annexure IV to the writ petition, reconstituting the Managing Committee of the Nehru Memorial High School, Umsning or in the alternative to quash the impugned order of 10.1.97 (Annexure 4). 2. According to the writ petitioners, they are all citizens of India belonging to the Khasi Scheduled Tribe and are Headmen often villages namely - (i) Nongkya, (ii) Umsning, (iii) Sohliya, (iv) Nongiri, (v) Unsaitsning, (vi) Lumnohgrim, (vii) Umtrew, (viii) Umran Diary, (ix) Umran Niangbyrnai and (x) Nongthymmai and they are all permanent residents of their respective villages under Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya. 3. In the year 1962, these 10 villages under their respective headmen founded the school known as Nehru Memorial School which is hereinafter referred to as school and constituted the sponsoring body of the said school and since the date of its inception, either the headmen or the prominent members of the said 10 villages have been managing the said school or have nominated the Managing Committee wherein they have also been members. After becoming a Govt. Aided School, the Managing Committee of the said school had to be approved by the respondent No.3 namely the Inspector of Schools, East Khasi Hills District, Shi Hong, the appropriate authority in the matter. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that the Managing Committee of the said school are terminated by the headmen or representatives of the 10 villages mentioned above. The said Managing Committee also consists of teachers, guardians and donors representatives. In the year 1992, the last Managing Committee was constituted for a period of 3 years as provided for in the rules and its term expired on 8.5.95. As there were many complaints with regard to mis-management and financial irregularities, committed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the present petitioners submitted that a new Managing Committee should be constituted as per rules and procedure and they demanded for an appropriate enquiry from the competent authority with regard to the aforesaid financial irregularities committed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 4 and 5, the present petitioners submitted that a new Managing Committee should be constituted as per rules and procedure and they demanded for an appropriate enquiry from the competent authority with regard to the aforesaid financial irregularities committed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Representation dated 9.9.95, Annexure 1 to the writ petition relates to complaint with regard to the aforementioned irregularities and mis-management and the demand for an enquiry from the end of Director of Public Instructions, Meghalaya, Shillong. Petitioners also urged the competent authority including the respondent No.3 by filing representation dated 11.9.95 as in Annexure 2 to the writ petition for immediate dissolution of the then Managing Committee due to the mal-practice and corruption perpetrated by some of its members. Due to public pressure concerning the affairs of the said school, the management of the said school was taken over by the Govt. vide order/letter dated 29.3.96 and thereafter, an ad-hoc Managing Committee was constituted by the competent authority pending final settlement and constitution of a new Managing Committee, On 22.5.96, a special meeting of the Headmen, Secretaries and representatives of the 10 sponsoring villages was held to elect new members for constitution of a new Managing Committee and accordingly, the petitioner No. 1 along with the proposed Secretary of the new Managing Committee wrote to the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 22.5.96 as in Annexure 3 to the writ petition informing the latter about the resolution of the sponsoring body and for approval of the new Managing Committee duly constituted by them. Instead of approving the resolution mentioned above, the respondent No.3, by his order dated 10.1.97 as. in Annexure 4 to the writ petition, reconstituted the regular Managing Committee on the basis of a purported letter dated 7.8.96 sent by the Joint Secretary of the ad-hoc Committee and letter dated 8.11.95 sent by respondent No.6 who is an MLA (Nongpoh) presently residing at MLA Hostel, Meghalaya. In pursuant of the aforesaid order (impugned order of 10.1.97), respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were again appointed as President and Secretary of the newly constituted Managing Committee. In pursuant of the aforesaid order (impugned order of 10.1.97), respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were again appointed as President and Secretary of the newly constituted Managing Committee. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order of 10.1.97 issued by the respondent No 3,6 (six) nominated members of the said Managing Committee, namely (i) Shri C. Shadap, (ii) Shri S. Nongbri, (iii) Shri S. Nongkseh, (iv) Shri EG Khongjoh, (v) Shri BW Pamshong and (vi) Shri B. Mawlieh issued a declaration dated 15.1.97 wherein they have stated they were not aware of the reconstitution of the new Managing Committee and accordingly they withdrew themselves from the said committee constituted by the respondent No.3. A copy of the English translation of the said declaration of 15.1.97 is appended to the writ petition and marked as Annexure 5. The spectrum of withdrawal of the 6 (six) nominated members from the said newly constituted Managing Committee as communicated by the petitioner No.3 under his letter dated 17.1.97 as seen in the document marked Annexure 6 to the writ petition, petitioners and other elders of the under mentioned 10 sponsoring villages filed representation dated 29.1.97 to the respondent No.3 for dissolving the said re­constituted Managing Committee as its constitution was illegal and an irregular one and they further requested the respondent No.3 to approve the new Managing Committee as per the proposal of the sponsoring body in its meeting held on 29.1,97. A translated copy of the representation dated 29.1.97 is appended to the writ petition and marked as Annexure 7. 4. Thereafter, the respondent No.6 who is an MLA, by his letter dated 18.2.97 requested the respondent No.3 to dissolve the newly constituted Managing Committee of the said school under the impugned order of 10.1.97. 5. Petitioners as well as parents, guardians and well wishers of the aforesaid 10 villages urged the competent authority including the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the related representations as in Annexure 9,10,11,12and 13 for dissolving the existing Managing Committee immediately which had been illegally constituted. According to the petitioners, those representations were/are not attended by the competent authorities till today without any justification. Having no alternative, they approached this Court for ventilating their grievances and for issuing an appropriate writ in the matter. 6. Respondent Nos. According to the petitioners, those representations were/are not attended by the competent authorities till today without any justification. Having no alternative, they approached this Court for ventilating their grievances and for issuing an appropriate writ in the matter. 6. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 contested the case of the writ petitioners by filing affidavit-in-opposition and contended inter alia that the writ petition is not main­tainable both on facts and law. According to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the real and actual founders of the Nehru Memorial High School are only few selected members and their families and not those ten villages as referred to in the writ petition by the petitioners, and that, as matter of fact who have patronised for the establishment of the said school are (j) Umsning village, (ii) Nongiri village, (iii) Syad-Lugdoh village (iv) Nongthymmai village, and (v) Syad-ril village and among those individuals including the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who also actively participated in establishing the school and the respondent No.4 was the founding Headmaster of the school. 7. Supporting of the case of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, a copy of the related resolution dated 2.9.1961 as in Annexure I to the counter affidavit is appended to it. Right from the inception of the ME School and its recognition thereafter by the Govt., the Secretary of the present Managing Committee as a regular practice used to call the founding members and sometimes even respectable and leading elders from the villages were also invited to the meeting for their suggestion for the said new Managing Committee along with the representatives of the teaching staff, parents, guardians and donors. The Managing Committee in the year 1992 has been approved and constituted vide order dated 12.5.92 as in Annexure II. None of the members of the writ petitioners were included in the said Managing Committee and that a regular Managing Committee was duly constituted by the Inspector of Schools under the impugned order of 10.1.97. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 went to state, that they made the following construction work of the school: "(i) One two storied RCC School building. (ii) One Basket Ball Court (duly cemented). (iii) One RCC School Canteen building for teachers, staff as well as for students. (iv) One guard wall from GS Road side. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 went to state, that they made the following construction work of the school: "(i) One two storied RCC School building. (ii) One Basket Ball Court (duly cemented). (iii) One RCC School Canteen building for teachers, staff as well as for students. (iv) One guard wall from GS Road side. (v) One new office room, cash counter and toilets, teachers' common room with toilet furniture etc." 8. The present Managing Committee has also undertaken and completed the extension work of the class rooms and purchased furniture like desks and benches by raising funds from various sources and, that the present Managing Committee has been working most seriously and devotedly for the betterment of the school. According to them, the writ petitioners have no contribution to the establishment of the school and none of their children are studying in the school. 9. It is also the case of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that the Managing Committee was constituted by the Inspector of Schools according to Education Department Rules. The writ petitioner No.2, who is a Govt. servant (Junior Gram Sevak) is conspiring to become the President of the Managing Committee and trying to create disturbances in the normal functioning of the legally constituted Managing Committee. In the said counter affidavit, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 contended that all the parents and guardians are regularly sending their children and wards to school and the classes are running smoothly without any interruption and that the Secretary of the previous Managing Committee has in fact duly conducted the election of the teaching staff to select two teacher's representatives to the new Managing Committee and the Managing Committee has been acting democratically, involving the members of the public in general. But, the writ petitioners, for the reasons known to them are disturbing the functioning of the existing Managing Committee legally constituted by the competent authority with the ulterior motive to destroy the institution which has been established with blood and sweat by the founding members. 10. Apart from this, the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 also filed counter affidavit and contended inter-alia, that management of the school was taken over by the Govt. 10. Apart from this, the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 also filed counter affidavit and contended inter-alia, that management of the school was taken over by the Govt. vide order/letter dated 29.3.96 and the ad-voc Managing Committee which was constituted vide office letter No. IS/M-4/26/81 -84 dated 29.3.96 was dissolved with the formation of the regular Managing Committee which was constituted with effect from 10.1.97 for a period of 3 years, and the said regular Managing Committee was constituted on the basis of letters vide Nil dated 7.8.96 received from the ad-hoc Managing Committee and No. Nil dated 8.11.96 received from the local MLA of the area and the respondents, particularly respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 accepted the said letters and thereafter reconstituted the regular Managing Committee as stated above. The regular Managing Committee which was constituted with effect from 10.1.97 is for a period of 3 years and, as such, its term shall expire on 10.1.2000. These are all the statements made by respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 as given in their counter affidavit. 11, Mr. HS Thangkhiew, the learned counsel assisted by Ms A. Paul, the learned counsel for and on behalf of the writ petitioners reiterated all the statements made in the writ petition. Over and above this, Mr. Thangkhiew contended that the respondents, particularly respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not pay attention to representations of the petitioners and also the representations submitted by the guardians, parents and village elders demanding the dissolution of the present Managing Committee of the Nehru Memorial High School on the basis of mal­practices and corruption as highlighted in the representations. Mr. Thangkhiew further contended, that the said respondents particularly respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had failed to perform their lawful duties in not disposing of the representations addressed/submitted to them as in Annexure 1,2,3,7,9,10,12,13,14 15,16, 17,18 and 19 to the writ petition till today. At least, the said respondents ought to have examined and considered those representations and they ought to have disposed of the same with a speaking order communicating the result and fate of those representations submitted to them to the concerned persons including the writ petitioners, Mr. Thangkhiew contended. At least, the said respondents ought to have examined and considered those representations and they ought to have disposed of the same with a speaking order communicating the result and fate of those representations submitted to them to the concerned persons including the writ petitioners, Mr. Thangkhiew contended. Overlooking these important aspects and existing state of affairs regarding the constitution of ad-hoc Managing Committee in view of the mis-management of the affairs of the school by the said Managing Committee, the Inspector of Schools, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, the respondent No.3 herein dissolved the ad-hoc Managing Committee constituted under the related office memo No.IS/M-4/26 81-84 dated 29.3.96 and constituted the regular Managing Committee (re-constitution of the Managing Committee) for a period of 3 years with effect from the date of issue of the impugned order . dated 10.1.97 giving reference to the letter bearing No. Nil dated 7.8.96 from the Joint Secretary, ad-hoc Managing Committee, Nehru Memorial High School, Umsning and letter No. Nil dated 8.11.96 from Shri C. Lyngdoh, MLA. According to Mr. Thangkhiew, the Inspector of Schools, the respondent No.3 herein issued/ passed the impugned order of 10.1.97 on the dictation of the respondent No.6 namely, Shri C. Lyngdoh, MLA. Rather, the respondent No.3 issued the impugned order on the basis of a letter dated 7.8.96 issued by the Joint Secretary of the ad-hoc Managing Committee of the said school without considering the important existing facts and circumstances of the case and without proper application of his mind in the matter. The respondent No.3/Jnspector of Schools, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, had completely surrendered his discretion, power and jurisdiction vested/conferred upon him by rules while passing the impugned order of 10.1.97 to the Secretary, ad-hoc Managing Committee of the school and to the respondent No.6/Shri C. Lyngdoh, MLA. As the impugned order was passed only on the basis of the aforementioned two letters of 7.8.96 and 8.11.96 as seen in the document marked Annexure 7 to the writ petition and the impugned order deserves to be quashed, Mr. Thangkhiew contended. 12. Mr. NK Deb, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of respondent Nos. As the impugned order was passed only on the basis of the aforementioned two letters of 7.8.96 and 8.11.96 as seen in the document marked Annexure 7 to the writ petition and the impugned order deserves to be quashed, Mr. Thangkhiew contended. 12. Mr. NK Deb, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 .and 5 contended, that the present regular Managing Committee has been proposed by the previous Secretary of the Managing Committee as per instructions contained in the letter of 30.3.95 issued by the Inspector of Schools as seen in the document marked Annexure IV to the counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and, the Secretary of the previous Managing Committee has in fact duly conducted the election of the teaching staff to elect two teacher's representatives to the new Managing Committee, as seen in the document marked Annexure V to the said counter affidavit and the said Secretary of the school convened the meeting of the founder and members of the sponsoring committee on 10.4.95 inviting their opinion for selecting the President and Secretary of the Managing Committee and this was done in order to avoid objections from any quarter and to show that the Managing Committee has been acting democratically, involving the members of the public in general. 13. According to Mr. NK Deb, the present regular Managing Committee was duly reconstituted by the competent authority by following the established principles of norms and as such, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of 10.1.97. Mr. Deb further argued, that the present writ petitioners have no moral and legal right to make wild allegations against the present Managing Committee, particularly the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 since the writ petitioners have no contri­bution to the establishment of the school and none of their children are studying in the said school. According to Mr. Deb, the present writ petition is not maintainable both on facts and law and it was presented by the writ petitioners before this Court in order to create disturbances in the normal functioning of the legally constituted Managing Committee and, as such, the writ petition should be dismissed in limine. 14. Mr. OS Ajar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 namely, the State of Megahlaya, the Director of Public Instructions, Education Department, Govt. 14. Mr. OS Ajar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 namely, the State of Megahlaya, the Director of Public Instructions, Education Department, Govt. of Meghalaya an Inspector of Schools, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, argued that the ad-hoc Managing Committee which was constituted vide office letter/order No.IS/M-4/26/81-84 dated 29.3.96 had been dissolved with the formation of a Regular Managing Committee which was constituted with effect from 10.1.97 for a period of 3 years arid this regular Managing Committee was constituted on the basis of a letter received from the Managing Committee vide latter dated 7.8.96 and letter No. Nil dated 8.11.96 received from the local MLA of the area and that, the respondents had duly accepted the said letters and thereafter re-constituted the said regular Managing Committee. 15. Now, this Court is to examine as to whether the present writ petitioners have enforceable rights in the matter and whether, it is a fit case for invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court as laid down under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not. 16. On perusal of the available materials on record, this Court is of the view that the relevant letter dated 7.8.96 issued by the Joint Secretary, ad-hoc Managing Committee, Nehru Memorial High School, Umsning and latter dated 8.11.96 of the concerned MLA are very important and rather, essential for just determination of the real points in controversy between the parties. But, those letters were not available on record and accordingly, this Court, by an order dated 27.8.97 directed the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-respondents to produce the relevant records containing those above two letters on 29.8.97 and accordingly, the learned Govt. Advocate had produced those related letters dated 7.8.96 issued by the Joint Secretary of the ad-hoc Managing Committee of the said school and also the copy of the latter dated 8.11.96 issued by the respondent No. 6/Mr. C. Lyngdoh, MLA. 17. I have perused these two related documents and taken judicial notice of them and these letters dated 7.8.96 and 8.11.95 are hereby formed as part of the record and marked as X and Y respectively for proper identification. C. Lyngdoh, MLA. 17. I have perused these two related documents and taken judicial notice of them and these letters dated 7.8.96 and 8.11.95 are hereby formed as part of the record and marked as X and Y respectively for proper identification. As per letter of 7.8.96 marked X, the Joint Secretary of the ad-hoc Managing Committee highlighted the fact to the Inspector of Schools concerned that the sponsoring body of the school, in its meeting held on 10.4.95 had duly elected the office bearers and nominated members of new regular Managing Committee of the school. As per Inspector of Schools order/letter dated 30.3,95, the teachers meeting was also held on 7.4.96 and elected two teachers' representatives to the new Managing Committee and, rather, the parents and guardians meeting had been held on 10.4.96 and elected two representatives of the new Managing Committee of the school. The said Secretary of the school further highlighted the fact that, instead of re-constitution of the new Managing Committee as proposed, the Inspector of Schools was pleased to constitute an ad-hoc Managing Committee of the school with effect from 293.96 but, at present, the ad-hoc Managing Committee cannot function properly as the members or officials of the ad-hoc Managing Committee are also Govt. responsible officials who are very busy with their official works and stationed very far from the school's headquarter, and that, all development works including construction works of the school building which was started by the previous regular Managing Committee now remains untouched. 18. Highlighting these facts, the said Secretary of the ad-hoc Managing Committee urged the Inspector of Schools for construction of a regular Managing Committee as proposed by the sponsoring body of the school, the parents, and guardians' meeting and teachers' meeting. The operative portion of the said letter is hereby reproduced as hereunder: "That Sir, in view of the above facts and circumstances, I pray your honour to kindly constitute a Regular Managing Committee as proposed by the Sponsoring Body of the School, the Parents' & Guardians" meeting and the Teachers' Meeting. The proposed Managing Committee is mentioned below : 1. President... Shri DW Lapang, BA, Founder Headmanter of the School 2. Secretary ... Shri JS Kharlor, 3. Jt. Secretary ... Headmaster of the School 4. Teachers representative - (i) Shri C Jahrin (ii) Shri SW Hongshli 5. The proposed Managing Committee is mentioned below : 1. President... Shri DW Lapang, BA, Founder Headmanter of the School 2. Secretary ... Shri JS Kharlor, 3. Jt. Secretary ... Headmaster of the School 4. Teachers representative - (i) Shri C Jahrin (ii) Shri SW Hongshli 5. Parents & guardians representatives: (i) Shri GS War (ii) Shri BW Lapang 6. Donor's Members ... Dr. K. Skhembil 7. Nominated Members ... (i) Shri RB Shadap (Headman) (2) Shri B. Nongkseh (Headman) (3) Shri BW Roy Pamshong (Headman) (4) Shri S. Shadap (Headman) (5) Shri S. Nongkseh (Headman) (6) Shri LD Syiem (7) Shri N. Shylla :(8) Shri B. Malieh (Headman) (9) Shri AP Syiem. That sir, your honour is prayed for to kindly take necessary action at the earliest. With thanks. Yours faithfully, Sd/ Headmaster, Nehru Memorial Secondary School, Umsning" 19. On perusal of the letter dated 8.11.96 of the respondent No.6, addressed to the Inspector of Schools, East Khasi Hills, Ri-Bhoi District, it has been revealed that the said MLA/respondent No.6 herein, stated in the said letter that after consultation with the local leaders including the supporters of the school, it is finally agreed that the Managing Committee of the school may please by re­constituted as proposed by the Secretary of the previous Managing Committee, Shri JS Kharlor, an out-going Secretary. The respondent No.6 further stated that the three members namely, Shri Commander Shadap, Shri Stainipgstar Nongbri and Shri Jones Khongjoh may be included as nominated members in the Managing Committee to the extent that Shri Commander Shadap shall be included in the Managing Committee in place of Shri RB Sadap and Shri Stainingstar Nongbri in place of Shri LD Syiem (since deceased). The MLA concerned, further informed the respondent No.3 his decision be kindly and immediately intimated to the President of the ad-hoc Managing Committee, Dr. SK Chattopadhaya to do the needful in re-constituting the regular Managing Committee so that the smooth functioning of the school is not hampered. For better appreciation of the aforesaid letter dated 8.11.96; contents of it is quoted below : "The Inspector of Schools, East Khasi Hills and Ri-Bhoi District, Shillong. Subject: Reconstitution of a regular Managing Committee of Nehru Memorial Secondary School, Umsning. Dear Mr. For better appreciation of the aforesaid letter dated 8.11.96; contents of it is quoted below : "The Inspector of Schools, East Khasi Hills and Ri-Bhoi District, Shillong. Subject: Reconstitution of a regular Managing Committee of Nehru Memorial Secondary School, Umsning. Dear Mr. Dkhar, With reference to the subject cited above, I am to state that after consultation with the local leaders including the supporters of the school, it is finally agreed that the Managing Committee of the school may pleased be reconstituted as proposed by the Secretary of the previous Managing Committee, Shri JS Kharlor, an out­going Secretary. In connection with the nominated members, the following members may kindly be included in the Managing Committee. 1. Shri Commander Shadap in place of Shri RB Shadap. 2. Shri Stainingstar Nongbri in place of Shri LD Syiem (since deceased). 3. Shri Jones Khongjoh This decision may kindly and immediately be intimated to the President of the ad-hoc Managing Committee, Dr. SK Chottopadhaya, to do the needful in reconstituting the regular Managing Committee so that the smooth functioning of the school is not hampered. Thanking you, With regards, Sd/- (Clyngdoh, MLA)" 20. To these available materials on record as discussed above, the following facts are established and, rather admitted by the parties : (1) It is admitted fact that the term of the former Managing Committee of the school expired on 8.5.95 and as such, the incharge Inspector of Schools, East Khasi Hills, instructed the Secretary, Managing Committee of the said school to submit his proposal for reconstitution of the Managing Committee immediately under the related office order of 30.3.95 as in Annexure IV to the counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and, therefore, the sponsoring body of the school, in its meeting held on 10.4.95 had duly elected the office bearers and nominated members of the new regular Managing Committee of the school and that the teachers' meeting was also held on 7.4.96 and elected two teachers' representatives to the new Managing Committee and thereafter, the parents and guardians' meeting was also held on 10.4.95 and two representatives have been duly elected to the new Managing Committee of the school and consequent upon these meetings, the Secretary of the ad-hoc Committee of the said school urged the Inspector of School the respondent No.3 for constitution of a regular Managing Committee of the said school and the members as highlighted in his office letter dated 7.8.96 marked as X for identification. (2) The local headmen, village Secretaries and local representatives of the aforementioned ten villages including the other two villages and the village representatives and local leaders met on 20.5.96 at 11 AM at Umsning Community Hall, expressed their views and concerns that the new Managing Committee be formed and constituted in order to get charge over the school for a smooth and clean administration and accordingly the writ petitioners and other representatives unanimously elected a full-fledged Managing Committee members with immediate effect and the related resolution was adopted and passed in the meeting of 22.5.96 as seen in the document marked Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The Secretary of the Ri-Bhoi Development and Social Welfare Association, HQ Umsning, under his office letter dated 22.5.96 requested the respondent No.3 for handing over charge of the ad-hoc Managing Committee to the new Managing Committee members and at the same time to recognise and approve the new Managing Committee by enclosing the related proceedings of the special meetings, which had been convened by the headmen, Secretaries, local headmen, and local representatives namely Umsning, Nongthymmai, Umran Niangbrynai, Umran Diary, Lumnongrim, Umtrew, Sohlyia, Banbudai, Nongkya, Umsaitsning, Syed Lyngdoh and Nongjri village. (3) It is also an established fact that the respondent No.3 namely the Inspector of Schools under his office letter dated 1.0.1.97 (impugned) reconstituted the regular Managing Committee by dissolving the ad-hoc Managing Committee of the said school which was constituted under the related office order/letter dated 29.3.96 on the basis of the aforesaid letter of 7.8.96 from the Joint Secretary of the ad-hoc Managing Committee of the said school and another letter dated 8.11.95 issued by the concerned MLA namely Shri C. Lyngdoh as seen in the document marked Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It is also an established fact that the six nominated members, namely Shri StainingstarNongbri, Shri Jones Khongjoh,ShriB.Nongkseh, Shri BW Row Pamshong, Shri S. Sadap and Shri B, Malieh had objected to their appointments or selection as nominated members as they are not aware about the matter and that, there was no meeting or election for such purposes. The said six nominated members expressed their strong objection against the action of the Govt. (Education Deptt) and accordingly, they withdrew themselves from the Committee constituted as per order dated 10.1.97 issued by the respondent No.3, namely the Inspector of Schools as seen in the document marked Annexure 5 to the writ petition. (4) The respondent No.6, Shri C. Lyngdoh, MLA under his letter dated 18.2.97 urged the respondent No.3/Inspector of Schools concerned to dissolve the Managing Committee of the said school at Umsning as formed under the impugned order of 10.1.97 as there is a lot of pressure and dissatisfaction over the matter by the sponsoring villages concerned and for approving the list submitted thereafter by the sponsoring headmen, as seen in the document marked as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. 21. Now, this Court has seen the real existing facts and circumstances of the case. Now, a question arises in the instant case as to whether in a common parlance, an authority or authorities can ask or dictate the competent authority namely the respondent No.3, the Inspector of Schools concerned to nominate person or persons as nominated members in the Managing Committee of the said school hi his official capacity or in discharge of his duties or under his jurisdiction vested upon him by rule or by law. It is very easy to answer that it can not be done in the eye of law inasmuch as the proposal of the MLA concerned for nominating three persons namely, Shri Commander Shadap, Shri Stainingstar Nongbri and Shri Jones Khongjoh as nominated members in the Managing Committee cannot be accepted or considered without placing the matter before the appropriate forum as required by law and rules. But in the instant case, the Inspector of Schools, without placing the matter before the appropriate forum and also without following the prescribed procedure as required by the related rules, just passed the impugned order of 10.1.97 reconstituting the regular new Managing Committee which, is my considered view, it is an arbitrary action, rather, the impugned order was passed on the dictation of the respondent No,6. Apart from this, the respondent No.3 also relied upon letter dated 7.8.96 marked as X while passing the impugned order of 10.1.97 but it is a fact that out of the nine nominated members, six had already raised objection for their election as nominated members which is an established fact as seen from the available materials on record. 22. Now, another question also arises to the extent that, whether the present regular Managing Committee of the said school is a full-fledged Managing Committee under the related impugned order of 10.1.97. After the six afore­mentioned nominated members had withdrawn their membership, the petitioner No.2 who is also one of the nominated members had challenged the validity of the impugned order of 10.1.97.1 am of the view that the impugned order was passed the respondent No.3 without considering the related important aspects and existing facts and circumstances of the case and it was passed on the dictation of the respondent No.6. Lord Wrenbury laid down certain laws as follows : "A person in whom is vested a discretion must exercise his discretion upon reasonable grounds. A discretion does not empower a man to do what he likes merely because he is minded to do so - he must in the exercise of his discretion do not what he likes but what he ought. In other words, he must, by the use of his reason, ascertain and follow the course which reason directs. A discretion does not empower a man to do what he likes merely because he is minded to do so - he must in the exercise of his discretion do not what he likes but what he ought. In other words, he must, by the use of his reason, ascertain and follow the course which reason directs. He must act reasonably." This statement and words and law laid down by Lord Wrenbury finds its place in the book namely 'Administrative Law' by HWR Wade in the Chapter, 'Abuse of Discretion'. 23. Now, this Court is to further examine whether the respondent No.3 in whom its vested discretion for constitution or reconstitution of a Managing Committee of a school has acted reasonably and exercised its discretion fairly in accordance with law or rules while passing the impugned order or not as discussed above. The Joint Secretary of the ad-hoc Managing Committee had recommended and rather, urged many things in his letter dated 7.8.96 marked as X for constitution of a regular Managing Committee on the basis of the resolution and meetings of the sponsoring body of the school held on 10.4.95 and on the other hand, the respondent No.6/MLA concerned, had also urged, rather dictated the respondent No.3 to nominate three members namely, Shri Commander Shadap, Shri Stainingstar Nongbri and Shri Jones Khongjoh without placing the proposal before the appropriate forum. But, the respondent No.3 acted upon it and passed the impugned order. In the other words, the impugned order was passed merely because he is minded to do so but he did not exercise his discretion in accordance with the related rules, not with reason and he did not act reasonably in the matter. In other words, The respondent No.3 simply passed the impugned order as in Annexure 4 to the writ petition on the basis of the aforesaid two letters and rather, on the dictation of the respondent No.6, without proper application of his mind. At this juncture, I hereby recall the chapter namely, 'Surrender, Abdication and Dictation' as enshrined in the Administrative Law written by Prof HWR Wade. In the said book, particularly in the said chapter mentioned above, Prof Wade had relied upon certain decisions and making his statement/words and accordingly, he states : "Clear-cut cases of unlawful dictation have occurred in other jurisdiction where Ministers have attempted to interfere for political reasons. In the said book, particularly in the said chapter mentioned above, Prof Wade had relied upon certain decisions and making his statement/words and accordingly, he states : "Clear-cut cases of unlawful dictation have occurred in other jurisdiction where Ministers have attempted to interfere for political reasons. In one, the Prime Minister of Qoebec gave instructions for the cancellation of liquor licence where the licensee was supporting an unpopular section of the community; 4 (Roncarelli vs. Duplessis (1959) 16 DLR 2D 689 (licensee repeatedly provided bail for Jehovah's witnesses); in another, an Indian Minister was alleged to have produced the taking-over by the state of businesses belonging to his political opponents.5 (Rowjee vs. Apdhro Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 962 . If the minister's intervention is. in fact the effective cause, and if the power to act belongs to a body which ought to act independently, the action taken is invalid on the ground of external dictation as well as on the obvious grounds of bad faith or abuse of power 6 (see below, p. 346-Roncarelli vs. Duplessis (1959) 16 DLR (2D) 689 at 705." 24. Applying these principles of law laid down by the jurist namely Prof HWR Wade and the decisions reported in the said cases, I am of the view that the respondent No.3 ought to have acted independently while passing the impugned order of 10.1.97 as in Annexure 4 to the writ petition. But, in the instant case, the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order on the dictation of the respondent No.6/MLA concerned as discussed above and also on the basis of the Joint Secretary of the ad-hoc Managing Committee, that was also not no his wisdom and discretion. I am of the view that it is an abuse of power exercised by the respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order. This Court may not go more in detail. It need not go more to other points raised by the writ petitioners. But, only on this ground of dictation, surrender of power and failure to exercise the power and discretion independently on the part of the respondent No.3, the impugned order as in Annexure 4 to the writ petition deserves to be quashed and, accordingly, it is quashed. It need not go more to other points raised by the writ petitioners. But, only on this ground of dictation, surrender of power and failure to exercise the power and discretion independently on the part of the respondent No.3, the impugned order as in Annexure 4 to the writ petition deserves to be quashed and, accordingly, it is quashed. Considering the existing facts and circumstances of the case and also for the welfare and smooth functioning of the said school, I am constrained to make the following observations, orders and directions : The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to appoint one-man Administrator for looking after the affairs and management of the said school namely, Nehru Memorial Secondary School, Umsning, within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of this judgment and order pending constitution of a fresh regular Managing Committee of the said school in accordance with the related rules. It is also made clear that respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 shall constitute a regular Managing Committee afresh within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order in accordance with the related Rules. It is also made clear that the present Managing Committee/respondents shall hand over their respective charges to the administrator so appointed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 25. For the reasons, directions and observations made above, the writ petition is disposed of. Parties shall bear their own respectives costs.