ARUN TANDON, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. P. Tiwari Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri P. N. Saxena Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri H. P. Shukla Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 5, Sri K. C. Shukla Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 4 and Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6. ( 2 ) JANTA Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Argupur, Shahganj, Jaunpur is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. The said society has established an institution in the name and style janta Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Argupur, Shahganj, district Jaunpur. ( 3 ) THERE was a dispute with regards to the office bearers of the Society. Under the orders of this court dated 22. 4. 1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 8774 of 1996 the contesting parties were directed to approach the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits who in turn was directed to either decide the dispute, himself or refer the matter for adjudication to the Prescribed authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act in light of the observations made. The matter was referred for adjudication by the Assistant Registrar to the Prescribed authority. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties concerned held that the Committee of Management with Sri Narendra Bahadur Singh son of Sri Triveni Singh was the lawful committee of Management and accordingly directed that the said order be placed before the assistant Registrar for appropriate action. Against the said order Narendra Bahadur Singh son of kundan Singh filed Writ Petition No. 19750 of 1997. Vide order dated 20. 1. 1999 the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous on the ground that the term of the office bearers who were elected on 21. 11. 1995 has since expired and fresh elections are alleged to have been held in the month of May, 1998. However, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of the District Inspector of Schools recognising the elections held in the month of May, 1998 before the appropriate authority/court. Against the said order of the learned single Judge Special Appeal No. 67 of 1999 was filed which was also dismissed vide order dated 1. 2. 1999. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 5, however, made a representation before the Regional Joint Director of education (Basic) in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 20. 1. Against the said order of the learned single Judge Special Appeal No. 67 of 1999 was filed which was also dismissed vide order dated 1. 2. 1999. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 5, however, made a representation before the Regional Joint Director of education (Basic) in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 20. 1. 1999 and dated 1. 2. 1999. The Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) by means of order dated 30. 9. 2000 recognised the Committee of Management with Sri Narendra Bahadur Singh son of Kundan singh as the Manager. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners filed Writ Petition no. 45344 of 2000. The said writ petition was finally decided along with subsequent connected writ petitions under the judgment and order of this Court dated 31. 3. 2004. This Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 45344 of 2000 while other subsequent writ petitions were dismissed as having become infructuous. The matter was remanded for decision afresh to the Director of education (Basic) or any other officer for deciding the dispute afresh by means of reasoned speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows : "the Director of Education (Basic) or any other officer authorised by him is directed to decide the dispute afresh after affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as contesting respondents by means of reasoned speaking order, in accordance with law. Till the dispute in question is decided afresh status quo as it existed prior to passing of the order dated 30. 9. 2000 in respect of management of the institution shall be maintained, inasmuch as it is well settled that none of the parties to the dispute shall be benefited of illegal order. " ( 5 ) IN compliance of the order of this Court referred to above the Deputy Director of Education (Basic) passed the impugned order dated 30. 6. 2004 whereby it has again been affirmed that Sri narendra Bahadur Singh son of Kundan Singh is the lawful Manager of the institution and he was accordingly recognised. The claim of the petitioner in that regard was rejected. 6. 2004 whereby it has again been affirmed that Sri narendra Bahadur Singh son of Kundan Singh is the lawful Manager of the institution and he was accordingly recognised. The claim of the petitioner in that regard was rejected. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the impugned order passed by the Deputy director of Education (Basic) contains absolutely no reasons for recording a finding that the petitioner had not been able to legally substantiate the findings of the Assistant Registrar with regard to his membership and on the basis of the aforesaid finding it has been held that the petitioner cannot be accepted as Manager. Further absolutely no reasons have been recorded for the purposes of upholding the legality or otherwise of the elections set up by Sri Narendra bahadur Singh son of Kundan Singh. ( 7 ) FOR the purposes of appreciating the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner it would be worthwhile to reproduce the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Education (Basic) in the impugned order, as contained in internal page 3 of the order, relevant portion whereof reads as follows :. . (Vernacular Text Deleted ). . ( 8 ) PRIOR to the reproduced paragraphs the Deputy Director has only referred to various proceedings which had taken place between the parties at various stages. ( 9 ) FROM the impugned order it is apparently clear that absolutely no reasons have been recorded for the purposes of arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner had not been able to legally substantiate the order of the Assistant Registrar whereby he was held to be a valid member. Further absolutely no reasons have been given for upholding that the Committee of Management with Sri Narendra Bahadur Singh son of Kundan Singh is the lawful Committee of Management and Sri Narendra Bahadur Singh son of Kundan Singh is the lawful Manager of the institution. The order does not make reference to any Committee of Management with Sri Narendra Bahadur singh son of Kundan Singh as Manager. In the opinion of the Court the order passed by the deputy Director of Education (Basic) records only the conclusions without any substantial reasons having been stated. The reasons are links between the facts and the conclusions arrived at. In absence of reasons having been recorded the impugned order cannot be legally sustained. In the opinion of the Court the order passed by the deputy Director of Education (Basic) records only the conclusions without any substantial reasons having been stated. The reasons are links between the facts and the conclusions arrived at. In absence of reasons having been recorded the impugned order cannot be legally sustained. (Reference Supreme Court judgments reported in AIR 1976 SC 1785 ; AIR 1974 SC 1487 and air 1976 SC 739 ). ( 10 ) ALTHOUGH Sri P. N. Saxena made an attempt to justify the impugned order on the basis of other material available on record, however, the contentions so raised by Sri P. N. Saxena are not being adverted to inasmuch as the impugned order is to be judged on the basis of the reasons mentioned in the order itself as has been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr. , AIR 1978 SC 597 . ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education (Basic) dated 30. 6. 2004, contained in Annexure-24 to the writ petition, cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be quashed. ( 12 ) WRIT petition is allowed. The order dated 30. 6. 2004 passed by the Additional Director of education (Basic) Allahabad is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Additional Director of education (Basic) Allahabad for deciding the dispute afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties strictly in accordance with the judgment and order dated 31. 3. 2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 45344 of 2000. The Additional Director shall record specific reasons in support of his conclusions with reference to the documents filed by the parties. The aforesaid exercise may be completed by the Additional Director at the earliest possible, preferably within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. . .