V. M. SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the District Inspector of Schools could pass an order of single operation of account under Section 5 (1) of the Uttar pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act. 1971 because recognition of the newly elected Committee of Management and attestation of the signatures of the Manager was pending before the Regional Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 19. 12. 2000? ( 2 ) THE election of the Committee of Management. Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Jaingara. Agra (in brief management) was held on 12. 1. 2001. The management, which was functioning since earlier election, was re-elected. Shri Jal Singh who had been continuously elected as Manager since 1989 was re-elected. The papers were submitted by the re-elected management in the office of the District Inspector of Schools (in brief D. I. O. S.) on 15. 1. 2001 for granting recognition to the management and for attesting the signatures of Sri Jal Singh. While the matter for grant of recognition was pending, the salary bill of teachers and employees of the institution for the months of January. February and March, 2001 was passed under the Joint signatures of the d. I. O. S. and Jal Singh. The D. l. O. S. passed an order on 3. 4. 2001 of single operation of accounts under Section 5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (in brief the Salaries Act), as the matter for grant of recognition of management had been referred to the Regional Joint. Director of education. Agra, (in brief R. J. D. E.) for consideration by regional committee which was likely to take time and the term of earlier management had expired. It is this order dated 3. 4. 2001 which has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition. ( 3 ) SRI Ramesh Upadhyaya the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order is palpably erroneous and against law. that it cannot be permitted to continue even for a day, as it is a serious inroad on the functioning of an elected body. 4. 2001 which has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition. ( 3 ) SRI Ramesh Upadhyaya the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order is palpably erroneous and against law. that it cannot be permitted to continue even for a day, as it is a serious inroad on the functioning of an elected body. The learned counsel submitted that it was an extraordinary case as the illegality of the order is apparent on the face of it and this court may in the exercise of its power quash the order as no factual controversy is involved. The learned counsel on merits submitted that there was no rival dispute of management and the entire earlier management was re-elected on 12. 1. 2001. He submitted that once the papers were received on 15. 1. 2001 in the office of the D. I. O. S. the regional committee constituted under the Government order dated 19. 12. 2000 or the D. I. O. S. could not delay the grant of recognition or attestation of the signatures of the Manager. He further urged that the regional committee could, not direct the d. I. O. S. nor the D. I. O. S. on his own could pass an order for single operation on the ground that there was likelihood of delay in the matter of grant of recognition by the committee. ( 4 ) ON the other hand Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh. the learned brief holder State of U. P. appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order and urged that once the term of the earlier management has expired and till the recognition of the newly elected management the committee or the D. I. O. S. would be justified in passing an order of single operation of account in the Interest of the staff of the Institution. ( 5 ) SINCE from the documents filed by the petitioners, it is clear that the election of the management was held before the expiry of the term and that is not disputed in the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in his submission that this petition may be disposed of at the admission stage without calling for any counter-affidavit. Further whether the impugned order could be passed merely because the papers for recognition were pending does not raise any question of fact. Further whether the impugned order could be passed merely because the papers for recognition were pending does not raise any question of fact. ( 6 ) BEFORE coming to the impugned order, it may be pointed out that in view of the complaints received by the State Government that some officers were misusing their powers under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 and Salaries Act, the State Government issued Government order No. 3446/15-13-2000-9 (11/94), dated 19. 12. 2000 for redistributing the work at regional level between the educational authorities working in the district. Under the order of the government, a regional committee was constituted of which R. J. D. E. was the chairman and regional Deputy Director of Education and D. I. O. S. were the other members. The regional committee was to take decisions on the matter of attestation of the signature of the Managers, appointment of saadhikar Niyantrak under the Salaries Act and management disputes, apart from other matters mentioned in the order. The committee was required to hold atleast two meetings in a month and the recommendations made by it was to be communicated to the authority, empowered in law, to pass orders. The relevant paragraph 10 of the Government Order dated 19. 12. 2000 is extracted below :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 7 ) FROM sub-paragraph 5 of the order it is clear that the regional committee is required to hold its meeting twice in a month. The intention of issuing the Government Order was to cut short the delay and remove the bottlenecks so that the matters mentioned in paragraph 10 may be disposed of by educational authorities expeditiously. In a case where there was no dispute regarding management, the regional committee could not delay the matter of grant of recognition to the newly elected management or in attesting the signature of the Manager. The purpose of issuing the Government Order would be defeated if the decisions are not taken by the regional committee at the earliest. preferably within a period of one month. The D. I. O. S. must send the papers to the regional committee at the earliest. And the regional committee must take a decision and send its recommendations to the concerned educational authority (in this case the D. I. O. S.)within a period of one month from the date the papers are received by the committee. The D. I. O. S. must send the papers to the regional committee at the earliest. And the regional committee must take a decision and send its recommendations to the concerned educational authority (in this case the D. I. O. S.)within a period of one month from the date the papers are received by the committee. Thereafter, the authority must pass an order immediately and along with his order he must also communicate the recommendations of the regional committee. ( 8 ) MORE than three months passed but no order was passed in this case, therefore, the question is whether the D. I. O. S. could pass an order of single operation of account under Section 5 (1) of the Salaries Act. on the ground that there is likelihood of delay in the regional committee taking its decision and the term of management had expired. Once the papers of election were received by the D. I. O. S. . he was under a legal duty to forward it immediately to the committee for taking a decision at the earliest. The order of single operation of account could be passed by the d. I. O. S. under Section 5 (1) of the Salaries Act which is extracted below : "5. he was under a legal duty to forward it immediately to the committee for taking a decision at the earliest. The order of single operation of account could be passed by the d. I. O. S. under Section 5 (1) of the Salaries Act which is extracted below : "5. Procedure for payment of salary in the case of certain institutions.-- (1) The management of every institution shall for the purposes of disbursement of salaries to its teachers and employees open (in a scheduled bank or a co-operative bank) a separate account to be operated jointly by a representative of the management and by the Inspector or such other officer as may be authorised by the Inspector in that behalf : provided that after the account is opened, the Inspector may, if he is subject to any rules made under this Act, satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, instruct the bank that the account shall be operated by the representative of the management alone, and may at any time revoke such instruction : provided further that in the case referred to in the proviso to sub-section (2), or where a difficulty arises in the disbursement of salaries due to any default of the management, the Inspector may instruct the bank that the account shall be operated only by himself or by such other officer as may be authorised by him in that behalf and may at any time revoke such instruction. " ( 9 ) SECTION 5 of the Salaries Act lays down the grounds on which an order of single operation of account can be passed. The Government Order dated 19. 12. 2000 provides that an order of single operation of accounts could be passed by the D. I. O. S. on the recommendations of the committee. The second proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Salaries Act clearly provides that where a difficulty has arisen in disbursement of salaries of the staff of the institution due to any default of the management, an order of single operation of account can be passed by the D. I. O. S. In paragraph 18 of the writ petition, it has been stated that there is no dispute regarding management and there was no default on the part of the management in respect of payment of salary to teachers and other employees of the institution. Section 5 (1) does not provide that for the delay on the part of the D. I. O. S. or the regional committee in recognising the newly elected management, an order of single operation of account could be passed. The Impugned order passed by D. I. O. S. on 3. 4. 2001 does not mention that the regional committee on the ground of delay had made a recommendation to the D. I. O. S. for passing an order of single operation of accounts. The power under Section 5 (1) can be exercised sparingly and for reasons mentioned in the section as it is an infringement of right of an elected body to manage the affairs of the institution. Any infringement of right cannot be accepted as valid exercise of power. Therefore, in absence of any recommendation of the regional committee or existence of condition precedent for exercise of power, the order passed by the D. I. O. S. is arbitrary and Illegal being contrary to the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the Salaries Act and the Government Order dated 19. 12. 2000. It cannot be upheld. ( 10 ) IN the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 3. 4. 2001 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Agra Annexure-5 to the writ petition is quashed. The District inspector of Schools, Agra and the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 19. 12. 2000 are directed to take a decision in the matter of grant of recognition to the election of the petitioners Committee of Management and attestation of signature of petitioner No. 2 as the manager within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 1. .