JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri G.K. Singh Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh Senior Advocate assisted by Sri D.K. Upadhyay Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 5 and Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. Petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in the array of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for any further affidavits specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today. 4. It is said that the office bearers of the same Committee of Management, elections whereof held in the year 1999, have parted company and have set up independent elections since expiry of the term of 1999 elections. Because of said split and rival elections pleaded, as per the records as many as 8 writ petitions have been filed before this Court, out of which at least 4 are still pending consideration. 5. The issue in short is as to how the valid elections of the Committee of Management of the recognized Intermediate College are to be held and by whom. 6. It is undisputed between the parties that the last elections of the Committee of Management were held in the year 1999 wherein the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 were elected as office bearers. It is further not in dispute that the term of the Committee of Management under approved Scheme of Administration has been provided as four years. Normally fresh elections should have taken place in the year 2003, however, according to the petitioners elections took place on 15th December, 2002, which were recognized by the Regional Level Committee vide order dated 4.1.2003 and consequential orders attesting the signature of the elected Manager were passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 8.1.2003 and by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 13.1.2003. In the meantime the Joint Director of Education issued an order dated 31st July, 2003 refusing to take cognizance of the application made by the respondent. 7. The respondents filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders, being Writ Petition No. 34766 of 2003. Initially an interim order was granted in the writ petition on 11.8.2003 (However, the writ petition has ultimately been dismissed on 21.11.2006). 7. The respondents filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders, being Writ Petition No. 34766 of 2003. Initially an interim order was granted in the writ petition on 11.8.2003 (However, the writ petition has ultimately been dismissed on 21.11.2006). Because of the interim order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, an order of single operation of account was passed on 28.8.2003. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order filed Writ Petition No. 44602 of 2003. The High Court on 1st October, 2003 stayed the operation of single operation of account. 8. On the recommendation of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, in said circumstances, an Authorized Controller was appointed in the institution on 21.11.2003. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by means of Writ Petition No. 53629 of 2003, wherein an interim order was granted by this Court on 5.12.2003. The writ petition is said to be pending. 9. In between it appears that respondents set up independent elections dated 25th December, 2003. On the basis of the said elections their signatures were attested by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 30.1.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4782 of 2003, wherein an interim order was granted by this Court on 10th February, 2004. The writ petition is said to be pending. 10. On 19th July, 2004 the Joint Director of Education passed an order of single operation of account having regard to the interim order of this Court referred to above. Not being satisfied the petitioner again filed Writ Petition No. 29162 of 2004, wherein an interim order was granted on 30th July, 2004. The writ petition is said to be pending. 11. An Authorized Controller was appointed in the institution, who ultimately continued to function between 30th July, 2004 to 17th December, 2006. On 16th June, 2006 the Joint Director of Education is stated to have passed an order recognizing the elections of the respondents dated 25.12.2003, referred to above. This order was challenged by the present petitioner before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 34801 of 2006, wherein an interim order has been passed on 6.7.2006 in the following terms : “In the meantime, Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra respondent No. 2 will appoint an Authorized Controller forthwith. Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the respondent No. 2 within 2 days by fax. Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the respondent No. 2 within 2 days by fax. Till the appointment of Authorized Controller no financial transaction or policy decision will be taken.” 12. It is admitted to the parties that in compliance of the interim order of this Court, referred to above, an Authorized Controller has again appointed in the month of July, 2006 itself and was working till the passing of the impugned order. 13. In order to keep the record straight, it may be noticed that independent rival elections, during the continuance of the Authorized Controller, by the petitioners dated 14th December, 2006 and dated 14th October, 2007 by the respondents were set up. 14. The papers pertaining to the rival elections so pleaded were forwarded to the Regional Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 19th December, 2000 and the Regional Joint Director of Education by means of letter dated 22.1.2008 communicated the decision of the Regional Level Committee dated 7.12.2007 approving the elections dated 14.10.2007, as set up by the respondents, subject to the condition that renewal of the registration of the society be obtained from the concerned Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. By means of the subsequent order dated 29th August, 2008 the said condition imposed in the order dated 22.1.2008 has been revoked by the Regional Level Committee and therefore by means of the order dated 30.8.2008 Regional Joint Director of Education passed an order for recognition of the respondent Committee of Management. Thereafter on 2.9.2008 the Joint Director of Education issued an identical order as a consequent whereof the District Inspector of Schools has attested the signatures of respondent No. 6 as the lawful Manager of the institution. It is against the order dated 22.1.2008, dated 29.8.2008 and dated 2.9.2008 passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education in terms of the decision of the Regional Level Committee dated 7.12.2007 that the present writ petition has been filed. 15. Initially at the behest of the writ petitioner, with reference to the various orders of this Court referred to above, including the last order dated 6.7.2006, it is contended that no elections of the Committee of Management could have been held by the respondents so long as the order of this Court directing appointment of Authorized Controller in the institution was not recalled. Further in view of the interim orders, which were operating in various writ petitions, as noticed above, by this Court, the respondent committee did not have the competence to hold any valid elections of the Committee of Management. 16. Rebutting the contention so raised on behalf of the petitioner, Sri V.K. Singh contended that the elections pleaded by the petitioners from time to time subsequent to 1999 were bogus inasmuch as the elections set up in the year 2002 are stated to have taken place at least one year prior to the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management and similarly elections of 2006 are unsustainable inasmuch as the term of the elected Committee of Management is four years. He further points out that in any view of the matter once the Joint Director of Education had recognized the elections of the respondents dated 25.12.2003 vide his order dated 16th June, 2006, the petitioners lost all right to claim that they were the lawful Manager of the Committee of Management and therefore they could not have held the elections dated 14th December, 2006. He clarifies that the Hon’ble High Court had stayed the order of the Joint Director of Education and had directed the appointment of Authorized Controller vide order dated 6th July, 2006, such interim order will not mean that the elections pleaded by the petitioner of the year 2003 had been recognized and therefore so long as the order dated 16th June, 2006 is not set aside by this Court, it is only the respondent Committee of Management which can held fresh elections of the Committee of Management. 17. The contentions raised on behalf of the parties may not detain the Court for long inasmuch as the Court is of the considered opinion that once the order of this Court dated 6th July, 2006 directing appointment of Authorized Controller in the institution was in operation and further since the Authorized Controller in fact was appointed in the Institution and was working, the elections set up by the contesting parties dated 14th December, 2006 and dated 14th October, 2007 are mere waste paper. None of the parties can claim any right to hold fresh elections in view of the order of this Court whereby the Authorized Controller was appointed and was working in the institution. 18. None of the parties can claim any right to hold fresh elections in view of the order of this Court whereby the Authorized Controller was appointed and was working in the institution. 18. The only option left to the parties, even if the term of the earlier Committee of Management was expired, was to approach this Court in the pending writ petition to seek such clarification for holding fresh elections or for such direction upon Authorized Controller to hold fresh elections as may be warranted in the facts of the case. None of the parties have chosen to do so and therefore this Court has no hesitation to hold that the rival elections pleaded by the parties of the year 2006 and 2007 respectively could not have been taken into consideration by the Regional Level Committee. 19. In any view of the matter the order of the Regional Level Committee recognizing the elections set up by the respondent does not take into consideration any of the interim orders, which were operating on the relevant date. It has not examined as to whether the respondents had any competence to hold the elections or not. The order is not supported by cogent reasons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and others, (2003) 11 SCC 519 has held that reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Again in 2008(4) ALJ 226; State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, in paragraph 9 it has been held that reasons are an indispensable part of sound judicial system and reflect the application of mind on the part of the Court. 20. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the impugned orders passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, which contains absolutely no reasons, cannot be sustained. Normally this Court would have remanded the matter to the Regional Level Committee for re-examination of the elections set up by the parties and to pass a reasoned speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Normally this Court would have remanded the matter to the Regional Level Committee for re-examination of the elections set up by the parties and to pass a reasoned speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. However, such a course is not being followed in the facts of the case for the reasons recorded above that none of the parties could have held fresh elections so long as interim order dated 6.7.2006 was in operation, as also because the Court is of the considered opinion that the litigation between the parties in respect of the elections of the recognized Intermediate College must be brought to an end. The attempt on the part of the contesting parties to approach this Court time and again cannot be approved of as it results in uncalled for hindrance in the management of the institution and uncalled for expenditure being incurred for entering into such litigations. 21. In the opinion of the Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, substantial justice would be served by providing that the Authorized Controller appointed under order dated 6.7.2006 shall hold fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the institution in the manner indicated below : (a) Authorized Controller shall publish a tentative list of members entitled to participate in the elections, treating the list of the general body members, who had participated in the elections of the year 1999 as the basic list. (b) The writ-petitioner as well as contesting respondents as well as every other interested person would be entitled to file his objections to the list so published. They may seek exclusion or inclusion of names of persons in the said list. (c) Electoral college shall be finalized, after deciding the objections if any, by means of a reasoned speaking order by the Authorized Controller, who shall thereafter proceed to hold fresh elections within one month in accordance with the approved Scheme of Administration. (d) The papers pertaining to the elections so held shall be transmitted to the Regional Level Committee for approval and at that stage parties shall be at liberty to file their objections both in respect of electoral college determined as well as against the procedure followed for the elections, if they feel aggrieved. (d) The papers pertaining to the elections so held shall be transmitted to the Regional Level Committee for approval and at that stage parties shall be at liberty to file their objections both in respect of electoral college determined as well as against the procedure followed for the elections, if they feel aggrieved. (e) The Regional Level Committee shall take its decision on the papers so submitted along with the objection, if any, within one month thereafter by means of a reasoned order. (f) The elected recognized Committee of Management shall be handed over charge of the institution immediately thereafter. (g) The impugned orders dated 22.1.2008, dated 3.8.2008, dated 30.8.2008 and dated 2.9.2008 are hereby quashed. 22. With the aforesaid observations/directions the present writ petition is disposed of finally. ————