YATINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THERE is a college known as Ashraf Zakaria Islamia Higher Secondary School, Noorpur, district Bijnor (the College ). It is governed by a scheme of administration approved under the u. P. Intermediate Education Act (the Act ). Elections of the committee of management were held in the year 1989 in which one Mohd. Siddiq was elected as Manager of the College. Sri Siddiq expired in the year 1991 and one Sri Abdul Ayum Qamar was opted as Manager of the committee of management. 17 persons requested for becoming life members of the society and the requisite amount was also deposited in the bank. The District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor (the DIOS) their membership on 27th July, 1992. Subsequently on a representation made by the committee of Management the DIOS by his order dated 7th August, 1992 cancelled his order dated 27th July, 1992. Thereafter fresh elections were held on 24-8-1992 in which one kutubuddin was elected as Manager. Thereafter again elections were held on 14-9-1995 in which Sri Viqar Ahamd (the petitioner) was elected as the Manager. His signatures were attested by the DIOS on 29-9-1995. During the tenure of this committee of management 17 persons who were allegedly debarred for being member by the DIOS on 7-8-1992 filed suit No. 302 of 1998 for declaring them permanent life member and restraining the committee of management from holding this election. In this suit a temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court on 9-11-1998. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 5th December, 1998, hence the petitioner filed writ petition No. 44633 of 1999 (the first writ petition) in this Court challenging these orders second, Third and Fourth writ petitions ( 2 ) THE petitioner was elected as Manager in the elections, which were held on 14-9-1995. The terms of the committee of management was three years and elections were to be held within three years one month. As no election could be held within that period Prabandh Sanchalak was appointed on 9th November, 1998. Prabandh Sanchalak held election on 14th February, 1999. In these elections admittedly 17 persons whose membership was cancelled by the DIOS on 7-8-1992 and who had obtained injunction from Civil Court participated. In these elections Sri abdul Haq (the contesting respondent) was elected as Manager of the committee of management. Prabandh Sanchalak held election on 14th February, 1999. In these elections admittedly 17 persons whose membership was cancelled by the DIOS on 7-8-1992 and who had obtained injunction from Civil Court participated. In these elections Sri abdul Haq (the contesting respondent) was elected as Manager of the committee of management. The signatures of Abdul Haq were also attested on 25th February. 1999. However, the DIOS stayed his order dated 25-2-1999 attesting the signatures of the contesting respondents on 5th March, 1999. The contesting respondent filed a writ petition No. 8678 of 1999 (the second writ petition) against the order of the DIOS dated 5th March, 1999. The DIOS again by his order dated 31st July, 1999 revived the order dated 25th February, 1999 and the petitioner has filed writ petition No. 34170 of 1999 (third writ petition) against this order of the DIOS. Finally the DIOS by his order dated 2nd August, 1999 set aside his order dated 25th February, 1999 attesting the signatures of the contesting respondent. Aggrieved by this order the contesting respondent has filed the writ petition No. 33051 of 1999 (fourth writ petition ). Fifth Writ Petition ( 3 ) PRABANDH Sanchalak was appointed on 9th November, 1998. He accepted draft for enrolling 40 members as life members on 6th January 1999, but he had made it clear that these 40 members will become members subject to acceptance by the committee of management. According to the contesting respondent after his signatures were attested the committee of management passed a resolution on 27th February, 1999 accepting these 40 persons to be the member of the society. When the DIOS by his order dated 2nd August. 1999 set aside the attestation in favour of the contesting respondent, he also appointed Prabandh Sanchalak and directed for holding a fresh election. In the meantime the Joint Director of Education, Moradabad (the JDE) by his order dated 25th January, 1999 and 25th January, 2000 passed an order that Prabandh Sanchalak is appointed to hold election and as such he can not enroll these members. In pursuance of this order the Prabandh Sanchalak passed an order on 28th January, 2000 returning the amount of these 40 persons. Out of these 40 persons three persons have filed writ petition No. 7325 of 2000 (fifth writ petition) challenging this order. 2nd and 3rd Writ Petitions are Infructuous ( 4 ) I have heard Dr. In pursuance of this order the Prabandh Sanchalak passed an order on 28th January, 2000 returning the amount of these 40 persons. Out of these 40 persons three persons have filed writ petition No. 7325 of 2000 (fifth writ petition) challenging this order. 2nd and 3rd Writ Petitions are Infructuous ( 4 ) I have heard Dr. R. G. Padia, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Shukla, Counsel for the contesting respondent as well as 17 persons whose membership was cancelled by the DIOS on 17-8-1992 and three persons out of 40 who have filed the fifth writ petition. Counsel for the parties agree that as the DIOS has passed a final order on 2-8-1999 setting aside the order attesting the signature of the contesting respondent and as such his two earlier orders dated 5-3-1999 and 31-7-1999 have merged into this one and the second writ petition and third writ petition filed against the orders dated 5-3-1999 and 31-7-1999 have become infructuous and are accordingly dismissed. This leaves only three writ petitions namely first, fourth and fifth writ petitions to be decided on merit. First Writ Petition has no merits : 17 persons rightly participated in the Elections ( 5 ) THE District Inspector of Schools had finally disapproved the membership of 17 persons on 7th August. 1992. According to the petitioner thereafter two more elections in the year 1992 and 1995 were held in which these 17 persons had not participated. This is denied by the contesting respondent. According to him as these persons were not included in elections in 1998, the suit was filed in the year 1998. In this suit an injunction was granted and they have rightly participated in the elections held by the Prabandh Sanchalak. ( 6 ) DR. R. G. Padia, Counsel for petitioner has made following submissions regarding impugned injunction order passed in favour of the seventeen persons in the suit. 1. The suit filed by 17 persons on 14-7-1998 is in substance for setting aside the order dated 17-8-1992. It is barred by time. 2. In the suit committee of management is not a party but the college is a party and as such it is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 3. The order of DIOS dated 17-8-1992 is a final order and can not be challenged in the writ petition. 4. It is barred by time. 2. In the suit committee of management is not a party but the college is a party and as such it is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 3. The order of DIOS dated 17-8-1992 is a final order and can not be challenged in the writ petition. 4. There is no resolution of the committee of management approving the membership of the petitioner. They can not become members of the society. 5. The effect of the interim order is that suit has been decreed, this can not be done. 6. The Court below has not considered the necessary ingredients for granting injunction. The First Three Submissions ( 7 ) THE first three submissions were not raised before the Court below. Petitioner is not entitled to raise them here for the first time in the writ petition. Apart from it they have no merits. The Suit is not Prima Facie Barred by Time ( 8 ) THE parties disagree on participation of the 17 persons in 1992 and 1995 elections. According to these 17 persons they had participated in these elections and when their names were not included in the list in 1998 the suit was filed. In view of this allegation it can not be said that suit was prima facie barred by time. Committee of Management not a Party--No Prejudice ( 9 ) THE College is a party in the suit. It is true that the committee of management represents the college. But merely because the college has not been described through committee of management the order can not be faulted when no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The orders of the Courts below can not be quashed on the first two grounds. Civil Court has Jurisdiction ( 10 ) THE membership of 17 persons was approved on 27-7-1992, thereafter the DIOS cancelled it on 7-8-1992. It is true that the order of DIOS under the scheme of administration is final but this finality does not override the jurisdiction of the Civil Court when the principle of natural justice are violated. The impugned orders can not be set aside on this ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Resolution not Material at this Stage ( 11 ) THE last three submissons arc inter connected and as such are being dealt together. The impugned orders can not be set aside on this ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Resolution not Material at this Stage ( 11 ) THE last three submissons arc inter connected and as such are being dealt together. The trial court found that the membership of the petitioner was approved. The Court below has also held that entire records were with the petitioner and as such it is not for the 17 persons to produce the copy of the resolution. In view of this finding, it can not be said that the order of Court below is illegal. Apart from it these 17 persons had given their membership fee which was deposited in the bank. Even if the Manager has taken out the money, it does not mean that it has been taken back by these 17 persons. It is not of their fault. The Courts below have also recorded a finding that these persons are members of the society. In view of this the orders can not be faulted if the resolution of the committee of management is not filed. Necessary Ingredients for Grant of Injunction have been considered. ( 12 ) IT is true that injunction order granted by the Courts below is the final relief. But the Courts below have given cogent reasons for doing so and have considered necessary ingredients for granting injunction. These seventeen persons have given necessary fees, which had been deposited. In view of this I seen no reason to interfere with the orders of the injunction passed by the Courts below. The first writ petition (namely W. P. No. 44633 of 1998) has no merit and is dismissed. However original suit No. 302 of 1998 may be decided expeditiously, and if possible, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order without being influenced to any observations made in this judgment. The parties will appear before the trial Court on 8th March, 2000. The Counsels for the parties have also given their undertaking that they will not seek any adjournment. The Order of the DIOS dated 2-8-1999 is Illegal ( 13 ) THE Prabandh Sanchalak was appointed on 19th November, 1998 and he has held elections on 14th February. 1999. Thereafter signatures of contesting respondent were attested on 25-2-1999. The Counsels for the parties have also given their undertaking that they will not seek any adjournment. The Order of the DIOS dated 2-8-1999 is Illegal ( 13 ) THE Prabandh Sanchalak was appointed on 19th November, 1998 and he has held elections on 14th February. 1999. Thereafter signatures of contesting respondent were attested on 25-2-1999. The DIOS set aside this order 2-8-1999 on the basis of report of the SDM and the opinion of the DGC. The contesting respondents in paragraph Nos. 19 and 20 of the fourth writ petition have stated that this order was passed by the DIOS without affording reasonable opportunity to him. There is no specific denial in the counter affidavit. There is nothing to show that the copy of the report of the SDM or the opinion of the DGC was given to the contesting respondent. In view of the writ petition No. 33051 of 1999 (fourth writ petition) is allowed and the order passed by DIOS dated 2-8-1999 is quashed. ( 14 ) THE copy of the report of the SDM dated 22nd April 1999 is Annexure 16 to the Counter affidavit in the fourth writ petition and the copy of legal advice of DGC dated 24th April, 1999 is Annexure 17 to the counter affidavit of the fourth writ petition. This counter affidavit has been served upon Sri V. K. Shukla. Counsel for contesting respondent. The parties may appear before the DIOS on 9-3-2000 and file their objection by the same date. The DIOS after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties may decide the entire matter at an early date and if possible, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Membership of 40 Persons Depends upon the Validity of the Elections held on 14-2-1999 ( 15 ) THE Counsels agree that authorised controller has no jurisdiction to enroll new member but sri Shukla, Counsel for the contesting respondent as well as of 3 out of 40 persons has submitted that though the Prabandh Sanchalak had enrolled 40 persons but they did not participate in the elections held by the Prabandh Sanchalak on 14-2-1999 and after the elections the committee of management passed a resolution on 27th February, 1999 accepting these persons as members and as such these persons arc valid members. The elections which were held on 14th February, 1999 are challenged. The elections which were held on 14th February, 1999 are challenged. In case the challenge to these elections is upheld then this resolution will be of no avail. This will depend upon the validity of the elections held on 14-2-2000. In case these elections arc upheld then these persons are members of the society in view of the resolution dated 27-2-1999 but in case these elections arc set aside then these persons can not participate in the new elections. The Prabandh Sanchalak has to hold fresh elections amongst the persons who are member on 9-11-1998. It is also clarified that unless some contrary orders are passed by any court 17 persons involved in the first writ petition would be entitled to participate in the fresh elections. The fifth writ petition (W. P. No. 7325 of 2000) is disposed of accordingly. Conclusion ( 16 ) THE writ petition No. 8678 of 1999 (Second Writ Petition) and Writ Petition No. 34170 of 1999 (third writ petition) are dismissed as infructuous. ( 17 ) THE writ petition No. 44633 of 1998 (first writ petition) is dismissed with the observations that the parties will appear before the trial Court on 8th March, 2000 and the trial Court may decide the case expeditiously, and if possible, within six months. ( 18 ) THE writ petition No. 33051 of 1999 (fourth writ petition) is allowed. The order of DIOS dated 2-8-1999 is hereby quashed. The parties will appear before the DIOS on 9th March. 2000 and may submit their reply/objections, if any, against the report of the SDM dated 22-4-1999 and the legal opinion of DGC (Civil) dated 24-4-1999. The DIOS after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties max decide the case at an earl) date and if possible within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ( 19 ) THE writ petition No. 7325 of 2000 (fifth writ petition) is disposed of with the observation that in case elections dated 14-2-1999 are upheld only then 40 persons alleged to have been enrolled by the Prabandh Sanchalak on 6-1-1999 will be held to be members and in case elections dated 14-2-1999 are not accepted, then fresh elections may be held by the Prabandh sanchalak on the basis of lega1 list of the members as on 9th November. 1998. 1998. The 17 persons (involved in the first writ petition) will also be entitled to participate in the elections subject to any contrary order of any other Court. ( 20 ) THE Prabandh Sanchalk is admittedly managing the institution. He will continue to do so till the matter is decided by the DIOS and in case fresh elections are held till fresh elections are held. With these directions all five writ petition are decided. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of writ petition Nos. 8678 of 1999; 34170 of 1999; 330j1 of 1999 and 7325 of 2000.