RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have, inter alia, sought quashing of the order dated 18. 2. 2003, whereby the regional Committee headed by respondent No. 1 has recalled/stayed its order of recognition of the petitioner-Committee of Management dated 17. 1. 2002 and referred the matter to the Joint director of Education, Agra to decide the same under Section 16a (7) of the U. P. Intermediate education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners, in brief, is that Shri Tilak Vidyalaya Inter College, Firozabad is a recognised institution governed by the provisions of the Act as well as by the provisions of the u. P. Intermediate Colleges and High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971. The institution has a duly approved Scheme of Administration framed under the Act. The institution is being run and managed by the elected Committee of management in accordance with the said Scheme of Administration. The term of the Committee of Management has now become four years instead of three years after amendment of the scheme of Administration w. e. f. 2. 12. 1997 under the orders of the Regional Deputy Director of education, Agra. The elections of the Committee of Management are said to have been held from time to time. It is alleged that on 5. 1. 2002, election of the Committee of Management was held in which one Ashok Kumar Dikshit was elected as the Manager and Uma Shankar Gupta as the President. After election the relevant papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for recognition and approval. The District Inspector of Schools forwarded them to the Joint Director of Education who approved and recognised the election on 17. 1. 2002. The District Inspector of schools then attested the signatures of the Manager (petitioner No. 2) on 19. 1. 2002. Respondent no. 4 who is also claiming to be the Manager of the Committee of Management filed a Writ petition No. 6824 of 2002 challenging the order dated 17. 1. 2002. Having not obtained any interim order, respondent No. 4 filed another Writ Petition No. 34023 of 2002 for the same relief. However, again he did not get any interim order from this Court. On 30. 10. 1. 2002. Having not obtained any interim order, respondent No. 4 filed another Writ Petition No. 34023 of 2002 for the same relief. However, again he did not get any interim order from this Court. On 30. 10. 2002 respondent No. 4 submitted a representation/complaint to the Regional Committee against the said election held on 5. 1. 2002 whereupon the District Inspector of Schools submitted an ex parte report on 30. 12. 2002 against the petitioner-Committee of Management. On the ex parte report of the District Inspector of Schools, the Joint Director of Education recalled/stayed its order dated 17. 1. 2002 by the impugned order dated 18. 2003. It is this order, which has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition. ( 4 ) THE contesting respondent has filed counter-affidavits wherein he has rebutted the claim of the petitioners. On 28. 2. 3003, this Court passed a conditional interim order wherein under Clause "c" the Regional Committee was directed to decide the question whether he had jurisdiction and power to review its earlier order and ordered the case to be listed after two months. Against this interim order respondent No. 4 filed a Special Appeal, which was allowed with a direction to the learned single Judge to decide himself the question. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, the petitioners concealed this fact at the time of hearing. On 19. 9. 2003 when the case was taken up the counsel for the respondent No. 4 informed about the special appeal filed by respondent No. 4 against the interim order dated 28. 2. 2003 and direction to give finding on the question whether the Regional Director of Education has jurisdiction to review its earlier order or not. ( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavits the respondent alleged that the undisputed election of the Committee of Management was held on 19. 3. 1995 wherein Shri Ram Sharma was elected as the President and Shri Uma Shankar Gupta was elected as the Manager. The term of that election having come to an end after three years, fresh election was held on 20. 2. 1998. In this election three parallel committees forwarded their claims to the District Inspector of Schools who referred the matter to the Joint Director of Education on 29. 10. 1998 for decision under Section 16a (7) of the Act. The term of that election having come to an end after three years, fresh election was held on 20. 2. 1998. In this election three parallel committees forwarded their claims to the District Inspector of Schools who referred the matter to the Joint Director of Education on 29. 10. 1998 for decision under Section 16a (7) of the Act. After seven months the District Inspector of Schools again sent the claim of the petitioners to the joint Director of Education. The Joint Director of Education decided the matter on 21. 8. 1999 and found that the election of none of the three committees were held according to the bye-laws and the election of the petitioner was also totally bogus and illegal and issued direction for fresh election to be held. On 5. 1. 2002 the petitioner alleges to have been elected as the Manager and got recognition from the District Inspector of Schools also. According to the respondent the valid election was held on 15. 2. 2002 in the presence of an observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools wherein Shri Mahabir Jain was elected as the President and Shri Anil Kumar Yadav (respondent No. 4) was elected as the Manager. The papers pertaining to the election held on 15. 2. 2002 were sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 16. 2. 2002 but the District Inspector of Schools did not forward the same to the Joint Director of Education. Respondent No. 4 thereafter filed a representation before the Joint Director of Education who called for a report from the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools submitted his report stating that the election of the petitioner was fake and that of the respondent was valid. On the basis of this report of the District Inspector of Schools, the Regional Committee passed the impugned order dated 18. 2. 2003 to refer the matter to the Joint Director of Education under section 16a (7) of the Act. ( 7 ) FROM the facts stated above, it is clear that the petitioners filed two writ petitions challenging the election of the Committee of Management said to be held on 5. 1. 2002 but could not get interim order from this Court. These two writ petitions (Writ Petition Nos. 6824 of 2000 and 34023 of 2000) are pending. ( 7 ) FROM the facts stated above, it is clear that the petitioners filed two writ petitions challenging the election of the Committee of Management said to be held on 5. 1. 2002 but could not get interim order from this Court. These two writ petitions (Writ Petition Nos. 6824 of 2000 and 34023 of 2000) are pending. When the matter was pending before this Court no authority has right to deal with the case and the representation of respondent No. 2 to the Regional Committee was wholly uncalled for and misconceived. The respondent No. 2 could approach this Court only for any relief. The District Inspector of Schools had no right to interfere in the matter and his report was without jurisdiction and illegal. The Regional Committee had no right to stay the approval of election when this Court did not grant such relief in two writ petitions. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. .