JUDGMENT : M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 12.7.1988, Annexure-2 to the writ petition passed by the Respondent No. 4, Director, Technical Education, U.P., appointing the District Magistrate as Authorised Controller. The Petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing Respondents to reinstate the Committee of Management to run the affairs of Prem Maha Vidyalaya Polytechnic, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as 'the Polytechnic'). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition it is alleged that a Polytechnic has been set up for giving technical education in Mathura. There is a scheme of administration regarding the polytechnic, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Under the scheme, the Committee of Management is to consist of 14 persons out of which six including the President are to be nominated by the Petitioner association. Seven members are representatives of the various bodies including the Central Government, and the 14th member is the Principal of the Institution who is also the Secretary of the Committee of Management. 4. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that there were various disputes regarding the management and hence the impugned order dated 12.7.1988 was passed by the U.P. Government appointing an administrator. True copy of the said order is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. By that order Dr. S. P. Luthara was appointed as Authorised Controller u/s 22D (4) of the U.P. Technical Education Act, 1962 (U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 5. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition it is alleged that there was a dispute between the Petitioner association and one Vikram Singh and in this connection a Suit No. 80 of 1991 was filed which was decided in terms of a compromise and a decree was passed accordingly by the Ist Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura on 5.5.2000 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 6. Thereafter a general meeting of the Petitioner association was held on 17.9.2000 and six persons were nominated to the Committee of Management of the Polytechnic. In the meanwhile annuity roll was given to the Petitioner association by order dated 30.5.2001 vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The registration of the Petitioner society was also renewed. 6. Thereafter a general meeting of the Petitioner association was held on 17.9.2000 and six persons were nominated to the Committee of Management of the Polytechnic. In the meanwhile annuity roll was given to the Petitioner association by order dated 30.5.2001 vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The registration of the Petitioner society was also renewed. True copy of the certificate dated 29.9.2001 issued by the Registrar of the Society, U.P. is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 7. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it is alleged that election has been held for the Committee of Management and office-bearers of the Petitioner association and now there is no dispute and hence a request was made by the President of the Petitioner association to reinstate the Committee of Management and remove the Authorised Controller. True copy of the request of the President dated 5.7.2002 in this connection is Annexure-9 to the writ petition. However, no action was taken in this connection. Instead, the Authorised Controller advertised for appointment of Principal and Professors in the Institution vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the writ petition that the Authorised Controller cannot continue forever and hence the Committee of Management should be reinstated. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and we have perused the same. In paragraph 4 of the same it is alleged that amendments have been made to the scheme of administration vide Annexure-C.A. 1. In paragraph 5 it is alleged that various irregularities were committed by the Committee of Management and hence an order u/s 22D (4) of the Act superseding the Committee of Management and appointing an Authorised Controller has been passed. 9. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit it is alleged that the registration of the Petitioner association has not been renewed till date. All of a sudden a new body viz., the Petitioner has come into existence which has filed the present writ petition. The genuine trust, i.e., Prem Maha Vidyalaya, Vrindaban is not in existence as is evident from the letter of Deputy Registrar, Firm, Societies and Chits, Agra vide Annexure-C.A. II. It is also alleged that by misrepresenting the facts the Petitioner succeeded in receiving annuity in the name of the original society, i.e., Prem Maha Vidyalaya which is not in existence. The genuine trust, i.e., Prem Maha Vidyalaya, Vrindaban is not in existence as is evident from the letter of Deputy Registrar, Firm, Societies and Chits, Agra vide Annexure-C.A. II. It is also alleged that by misrepresenting the facts the Petitioner succeeded in receiving annuity in the name of the original society, i.e., Prem Maha Vidyalaya which is not in existence. It is alleged that Prem Maha Vidyalaya Trust has not been renewed and as per the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1960, it has become defunct. The Petitioner calling itself Prem Maha Vidyalaya Association is an unauthorised body and wants to usurp the powers of a non-existing body. The alleged meeting of the petition on 17.9.2000 cannot be regarded as legal since the Petitioner society is not genuine and even otherwise there is lapse of meeting for more than three years and as such the meeting can only be held by the Registrar. 10. We have also perused the rejoinder-affidavit. 11. From a perusal of the affidavits filed in this petition it appears that highly disputed questions, of fact are involved, e.g., whether the Petitioner is a genuine body, whether the original society/ trust has become defunct, whether there was a valid meeting held on 17.9.2000, etc. 12. It is not possible for us to decide these disputed questions of fact in this writ petition. Hence, in our opinion, the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner is to file a civil suit in this connection where these disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated. 13. Hence, the petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.