ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition was heard along with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49016 of 1099. Committee of Management and another v. District Inspector of Schools. ( 2 ) THE contesting parties advanced argument at length. But, the facts are not in dispute. The relevant facts, as available from the materials on record, are that an election was held on 24. 1. 1996 which was not recognised and, therefore, a civil suit was filed wherein an injunction order was passed ex parte, A Misc. Appeal No. 38 of 1996 filed against the said injunction order was allowed and the injunction was vacated. A review application was filed against the same. Also a revision being No. 3821 of 1996 was filed challenging the order dated 14,10. 1996. The writ petition was disposed of on 9. 9. 1997 directing early disposal of the review application and also directing maintaining status quo till then. Ultimately, the review application was allowed on 22. 12. 1997 and appeal was restored. Contesting respondent was re-elected and he filed impleadment application in the suit. ( 3 ) ON 7. 1. 1998, injunction order was passed by the trial court and in terms of the injunction order, the petitioners signature was attested on 10. 3. 1998. On the basis of fresh election, signature of respondent No. 3 was attested on 23. 3. 1998. ( 4 ) MISC. Appeal No. 38 of 1996, which was earlier restored, was allowed by the order dated 2. 11. 1998 and the matter was remanded to the trial court directing parties to maintain status quo. A revision was taken and revisional order dated 6. 1. 1999 directed disposal of the injunction order. ( 5 ) ON 29. 1. 1999 order was passed directing single operation of the account. The present writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid order of single operation. On 16. 4. 1999, the trial court vacated the injunction order. ( 6 ) DR. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present writ petition is to be allowed as single operation order was validly passed when injunction order was there and petitioners signature stood attested. ( 7 ) MR. On 16. 4. 1999, the trial court vacated the injunction order. ( 6 ) DR. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present writ petition is to be allowed as single operation order was validly passed when injunction order was there and petitioners signature stood attested. ( 7 ) MR. A. P. Sahi, learned counsel for the contesting respondent contends that admittedly fresh election has been held and the trial court has vacated the injunction order and, therefore, the attestation of signature of the petitioner by reason of said injunction order does not entitle the petitioner any more to seek relief. ( 8 ) AFTER considering the aforesaid contentions as also perusing the materials on record. I find that admittedly the reference was made by the District Inspector of Schools to the Joint Director of education for the purpose of resolving the dispute of rival committees of management. In the present facts, law also requires such decision on facts by the Joint Director of Education. Admittedly the injunction order passed by the trial court has since been vacated and, therefore, the present petitioner is not entitled to claim his right following the said injunction order. In such background, as the main questions are to be decided by the Joint Director of Education, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent. Joint Director of Education to decide the dispute between the rival committees of management in accordance with law after considering all relevant facts and granting opportunity to all contesting parties and such decision is to be taken within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. .