JUDGMENT Honble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioners have sought the quashing of the order dated 29th June, 2009 passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Aligarh whereby the removal of the Manager of the Committee of Management of Shri Mahaur Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Jwalapuri Naurangabad, district Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Primary School’) on the basis of the No Confidence Motion passed on 20th April, 2009 by the Committee of Management of the Primary School and approved by the Executive Body of the Trust on 29th April, 2009 has been set aside and the Manager has been directed to continue for the remaining term. 2. It is stated that Sri Mahaur Vaishya Vidhya Prachar Trust was constituted in 1985-86 and is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Trust has its own bye-laws according to which the term of the Executive Body is five years. In the list of the Executive Body of the Trust for the year 2004-05, Ramesh Chandra Gupta was the President, Hari Om Gupta was the Secretary and petitioner No. 4 Prem Prakash Mahajan was the Deputy Manager. According to the bye-laws, the President of the Trust is the President of the Executive Body nominated for the Primary School. Ramesh Chandra Gupta was, therefore, the President of the Executive Body of the Primary School and respondent No. 4 Prakash Vir Gupta was nominated as the Manager of the Primary School. It is alleged that respondent No. 4 started abusing his position as Manager and financial irregularities were also committed by him. The Committee of Management of the Primary School, therefore, in the meeting held on 20th April, 2009 under the Presidentship of Ramesh Chandra Gupta in which 8 out of the possible 10 members were present, unanimously passed the No Confidence Motion and removed respondent No. 4 Prakash Vir Gupta from the post of Manager. In his place petitioner No. 3 Narayan Hari Gupta was appointed as the Manager for the remaining term of the Committee of Management. The matter was thereafter placed before the Executive Committee of the Trust which on 29th April, 2009, in which 17 members out of 24 members attended the meeting, approved the resolution of the Committee of Management of the Primary School. The matter was thereafter placed before the Executive Committee of the Trust which on 29th April, 2009, in which 17 members out of 24 members attended the meeting, approved the resolution of the Committee of Management of the Primary School. Thereafter the papers were sent to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Aligarh who on 4th May, 2009 attested the signatures of petitioner No. 3 Narayan Hari Gupta as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Primary School. 3. However, respondent No. 4 Prakash Vir Gupta submitted an application dated 8th May, 2009 before the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari contending that the signatures of petitioner No. 3 Narayan Hari Gupta had been wrongly attested and should be cancelled. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari issued notice dated 12th May, 2009 to both Narayan Hari Gupta as well as Prakash Vir Gupta fixing 18th May, 2009 for hearing. Petitioner No. 3 Narayan Hari Gupta objected to the matter being taken up by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari on the ground that such a dispute could only be resolved by the ‘Nyaya Samiti’ constituted under the bye-laws of the Trust. This objection did not find favour with the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and by the order dated 29th June, 2009 he set aside the resolution dated 20th April, 2009 of the Committee of Management of the Primary School and directed that respondent No. 4 Prakash Vir Gupta shall continue as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Primary School for the remaining term. It is this order dated 29th June, 2009 that has been impugned in the present petition. 4. I have heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel has been heard on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri B.B. Paul has been heard on behalf of respondent No. 4 Prakash Vir Gupta. 5. 4. I have heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel has been heard on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri B.B. Paul has been heard on behalf of respondent No. 4 Prakash Vir Gupta. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari had no jurisdiction to entertain the objections filed by respondent No. 4 Prakash Vir Gupta against the attestation of signatures of petitioner No. 3 Narayan Hari Gupta as Manager for the remaining term inasmuch as under the bye-laws the dispute regarding expulsion of an office bearer of the Executive Committee of the Primary School was required to be adjudicated by the ‘Nyaya Samiti’ constituted under the bye-laws of the Trust and not by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. He further submitted that the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari completely misinterpreted the bye-laws of the Primary School in coming to the conclusion that it is the Executive Body of the Trust which alone has the power to remove the office bearer of the Committee of Management of the Primary School and such power does not vest with the Committee of Management of the Primary School. 6. Sri B.B. Paul learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 Prakash Vir Gupta, however, submitted that the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari had the jurisdiction to decide whether the Committee of Management of the Primary School could expel the Manager under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972. He further submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and in any view of the matter, the present petition should not be entertained as it raises disputed questions of fact which can only be adjudicated in a Civil Suit. It is also his submission that notice was not issued to respondent No. 4 before removing him from the post of Manager and, therefore, the order also deserves to be set aside. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of the bye-laws of the Trust as well as that of the Primary School. 9. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of the bye-laws of the Trust as well as that of the Primary School. 9. Bye-law 4(b) of the Trust provides that there shall be a ‘Nyaya Samiti’ which shall consist of 5 members and the constitution of this ‘Nyaya Samiti’ has also been provided for. Bye-law-4 of the Primary School provides that the removal of any office bearer of the Committee of Management of the Primary School shall be first considered by the Committee of Management of the Primary School which shall have the power to remove the office bearer and fill up the resultant vacancy but information about this should be immediately sent to the President of the Trust who shall call a meeting of the Executive Body of the Trust within a period of one month for approval of the resolution of the Committee of Management and the decision of the Committee of Management of the Primary School shall be given effect to only upon grant of such approval by the Executive Body of the Trust. It also provides that any person aggrieved by the decision taken by the Executive Body of the Trust can file a representation before the ‘Nyaya Samiti’ and any decision taken by the ‘Nyaya Samiti’ can be challenged before the ‘Akhil Bhartiya Mahaur Vaishya Mahasabha’ which decision shall be final. 10. In the present case, the Committee of Management of the Primary School resolved on 20th April, 2009 to remove the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Primary School as his activities were against the interest of the Primary School and this resolution of the Committee of Management was approved by the Executive Body of the Trust on 29th April, 2009. This is in accordance with the bye-laws of the Primary School. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, however, on a complete misreading of the provisions of the bye-laws of the Trust as well as that of the Primary School observed that it is the Executive Body of the Trust which alone can remove the office bearer and such power does not vest with the Committee of Management of the Primary School. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, however, on a complete misreading of the provisions of the bye-laws of the Trust as well as that of the Primary School observed that it is the Executive Body of the Trust which alone can remove the office bearer and such power does not vest with the Committee of Management of the Primary School. In such circumstances when interpretation of the provisions of the bye-laws are involved, it is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners should be asked to avail the remedy of Civil Suit. The order dated 29th June, 2009, therefore, cannot be sustained. 11. This apart, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari should not have entertained the objections also deserves to be accepted inasmuch as any person aggrieved by the decision taken by the Executive Body of the Trust can first file a representation to the ‘Nyaya Samiti’ as provided under bye-law 4 of the bye-laws of the Primary School and than to the ‘Akhil Bhartiya Mahaur Vaishya Mahasabha’. 12. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari in the present case had attested the signatures of petitioner No. 3 Narayan Hari Gupta as Manager of the Committee of Management of the Primary School on 4th May, 2009 and, therefore, if Prakash Vir Gupta was aggrieved by his expulsion as Manager of the Committee of Management of the Primary School, he could have filed a representation before the ‘Nyaya Samiti’. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, therefore, was not justified in entertaining the objections and deciding them. There can be no quarrel with the submission of Sri B.B. Paul learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 that it is the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari who has to attest the signatures of the Manager but the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari had exercised this power and attested the signatures of petitioner No. 3 as Manager of the Committee of Management of the Primary School. Under the bye-laws of the Primary School, if any person is aggrieved by the resolution of the Executive Body of the Trust in approving the decision of the Committee of Management to remove the office bearer of the Primary School, he can file a representation before the ‘Nyaya Samiti’ and not to the District Basic Education Officer. 13. Under the bye-laws of the Primary School, if any person is aggrieved by the resolution of the Executive Body of the Trust in approving the decision of the Committee of Management to remove the office bearer of the Primary School, he can file a representation before the ‘Nyaya Samiti’ and not to the District Basic Education Officer. 13. Though it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that notice of the meeting held on 20th April, 2009 was given to respondent No. 5, but it will not be appropriate to decide this issue as it can be agitated by the respondent No. 4 Prakash Vir Gupta before the ‘Nyaya Samiti’ should he move a representation to challenge the decision taken to remove him as the Manager. 14. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the order dated 29th June, 2009 passed by the District Basic Education Officer is set aside. It shall, however, be open to respondent No. 4 Prakash Vir Gupta to file a representation before the ‘Nyaya Samiti’ to challenge his expulsion. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. ————