JUDGMENT By the Court.—This appeal, arises out of a dispute in respect of elections of the Committee of Management of Sri Mad Brahmanand Inter College, Aligarh. An order dated 14/18th May, 2009 of the District Inspector of Schools was brought under challenge, in writ petition No. 29955 of 2009, whereby the District Inspector of Schools, after putting respondent Nos. 1 and 2-writ petitioners to notice, held that the alleged committee represented by the respondent No. 1 had become defunct. The order imposes single operation of accounts for payments in the institution under Section 5(1) of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971) and a recommendation has been made by the District Inspector of Schools to the competent authority to appoint an authorised controller. The order further recites that it shall be subject to the outcome of the two writ petitions namely W.P. No. 65210 of 2006 and W.P. No. 28348 of 2008 pending consideration before this Court. 2. The facts giving rise to the present controversy in short are that the institution is an Intermediate College which has a Scheme of Administration duly approved under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder and is run by a society namely Sri Maithil Brahman Sanskrit Pathshala Society, Aligarh, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The dispute about elections had arisen earlier and the same travelled up to this Court wherein orders were passed directing the Regional Level Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education, Agra to decide the same, including the dispute pertaining to the electoral college entitled to elect the Committee of Management of the Institution. This had become necessary as two rival sets of elections had been set up, one by the appellants who claimed that a valid election had been held on 3.9.2004 and the other set of election set up by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claiming that they had held valid elections on 19th of September, 2004. 3. This had become necessary as two rival sets of elections had been set up, one by the appellants who claimed that a valid election had been held on 3.9.2004 and the other set of election set up by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claiming that they had held valid elections on 19th of September, 2004. 3. The Regional Level Committee as per directions of this Court proceeded to examine the rival contentions and thereafter ultimately vide order dated 26.10.2006 held both the elections, that of the appellants and of the contesting respondents, as invalid and accordingly appointed the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh as the Prabandh Sanchalak of the institution with a direction to hold elections within six months, from amongst the members whose list had been finalised under the said order, and including such members who by the end of September, 2004 were the validly enrolled members of the electoral college, after getting the same published. A further direction was issued that elections should be held according to the amended Scheme of Administration after getting approval from the competent authority. 4. This decision dated 26th October, 2006 was challenged in writ petition No. 65210 of 2006 by the respondent writ petitioner Bhoj Dutt Misra in which the operation of the said order was stayed and status quo with regard to the management of the college was directed to be maintained. It is claimed that by virtue of the said interim order which was extended from time to time and was last extended up to 13th March, 2008, the respondent petitioners continued to function. The said writ petition is admittedly still pending and has not been disposed of as yet. 5. With the aid of the aforesaid interim order, the respondent petitioners proceeded to get elections held and an order of the District Inspector of Schools was passed on 21.6.2008 appointing an Observer for supervising the elections. The elections which were sought to be held by the respondent petitioners was as per the notice published on 9.6.2008 in the news paper, extract whereof has been appended as Annexure 9 to the stay application filed in support of the appeal. According to the said election programme the election was to be concluded by the constitution of the committee of management by electing the office bearers on 13.7.2008. The last date for withdrawal of nominations was fixed for 23.6.2008. 6. According to the said election programme the election was to be concluded by the constitution of the committee of management by electing the office bearers on 13.7.2008. The last date for withdrawal of nominations was fixed for 23.6.2008. 6. At this juncture the appellant Om Prakash Sharma, alleging that the respondents had no right to hold elections in view of the findings in the order dated 26.10.2006 passed by the Regional Level Committee and further that the interim order in Writ Petition No. 65210 of 2006 had expired, filed writ petition No. 28348 of 2008 challenging the election programme with a prayer to hold the elections through an Authorised Controller under the direction of the District Inspector of Schools in which an order of status quo was passed on 16.6.2008 and which writ petition is stated to be still pending. 7. According to the respondent writ petitioners , the election of 12 members of the committee of management was held on 23.6.2008 inasmuch as 12 members were required to be elected out of 16, who had filed their nominations and since four of the candidates had withdrawn their nominations, only 12 members remained in the fray who were all elected unopposed. It was alleged in the writ petition that the respondent No. 2 writ petitioner was elected as the Manager on the same day. 8. When the matter came before the District Inspector of Schools he issued a notice on 19.2.2009 calling upon the respondent writ petitioners to show cause as to how they had held elections keeping in view the interim order of status quo passed in Writ Petition No. 28348 of 2008 dated 16.6.2008 and in view of the pendency of the earlier writ petition No. 62510 of 2006 and other connected matters. A reply was submitted by the respondent petitioners on 25.2.2009 on which the District Inspector of Schools sought a legal opinion from the District Government Counsel district Court, Aligarh whereafter he passed the order dated 14/18.5.2009 which is impugned in the writ petition giving rise to the present special appeal. 9. A reply was submitted by the respondent petitioners on 25.2.2009 on which the District Inspector of Schools sought a legal opinion from the District Government Counsel district Court, Aligarh whereafter he passed the order dated 14/18.5.2009 which is impugned in the writ petition giving rise to the present special appeal. 9. The appellant contested the matter before the learned Single Judge and urged that in view of the order of status quo passed in writ petition No. 28348 of 2008 referred to herein above and the stay order of W.P. No. 65210 of 2006 having expired, the respondent writ petitioners had no authority or right to hold the election of the committee of management and even otherwise the elections of the earlier committee elected in 2004 had not been recognised vide order dated 26.10.2006, therefore the elections held by the respondent writ petitioners as claimed on 23.6.2008 is invalid. 10. Various other submissions were advanced whereupon the learned Single Judge held that the order of status quo passed in the said writ petition No. 28348 of 2008 did not amount to a prohibition for the committee of management to proceed to hold the elections and since they were managing the affairs of the institution, there was no occasion for the District Inspector of Schools to have passed the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has further held that the election cannot be held to be invalid merely on the ground that it was declared on the last date of filing of nominations inasmuch as the election programme itself says that the election would be necessary only if the election was required to be held. The conclusion appears to be founded on the premise that once the election of 12 members was complete and it was uncontested, there was no impediment in the declaration of the results or the holding of the election of the committee of management on the same day. 11. We have heard Sri M.A. Qadeer learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Mehtab Alam for the appellant and Sri Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 writ petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 12. 11. We have heard Sri M.A. Qadeer learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Mehtab Alam for the appellant and Sri Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 writ petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 12. Sri Qadeer contends that the learned Single Judge has erred in recording findings which reflect an incorrect appreciation of the impact of the interim order of the High Court dated 28.11.2006, last extended till 13.3.2008, the provisions relating to the procedure of the election of the Committee of Management as contained in clause 5(3) of the amended and accepted Scheme of Administration, the recital of the election programme as published by the Election Officer and the effect of the interim order dated 16.6.2008 which according to the appellant had already been received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 18.6.2008. It is contended that the learned Single Judge on all these counts has arrived at a conclusion which is against the weight of evidence on record. 13. Sri M.K. Gupta contends that the appellant had also not been recognised as is evident from the order of the Regional Level Committee dated 26.10.2006 and, therefore, in all fairness the elections were rightly conducted by the respondent petitioners in the presence of the Observer through valid members of the Committee of Management. He contends that the elections are not vitiated and the procedure followed does not materially affect the results of the same. He, therefore, submits that the order impugned does substantial justice between the parties and there is nothing to invalidate the elections held on 23.6.2008 nor is there any violation of the Scheme of Administration. He therefore, contends that the District Inspector of Schools had erroneously passed the order dated 14.5.2009, as issued on 18.5.2009, which has been rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. 14. Having considered the rival submissions, it is evident that in a contest relating to the rival elections of the year 2004 the Regional Level Committee concluded that none of the elections as set up on 3.9.2004 or 19.9.2004 were valid. The order further declares the valid membership of the electoral college and directs the elections to be held in accordance with the amended Scheme of Administration upon approval. The order further declares the valid membership of the electoral college and directs the elections to be held in accordance with the amended Scheme of Administration upon approval. The said order dated 26.10.2006 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 62510 of 2006 in which initially an interim order was passed staying the operation of the order dated 28.11.2006 but the last extension survived up to 13.3.2008 whereafter the interim order was not extended. The elections were sought to be held by respondent writ petitioner, therefore writ petition No. 28348 of 2008 was filed by the appellant seeking a mandamus that the elections be held by the Authorised Controller under the directions of the District Inspector of Schools in which the following interim order was passed on 16.6.2008 : “List on 21st of July, 2008 as a fresh case for admission/hearing. Till then status quo as it exists today shall be maintained.” 15. The learned Single Judge on this issue arrived at the conclusion that the aforesaid order of status quo cannot be interpreted to mean the extension of the term of the Committee of Management and the same does not prohibit the holding of fresh elections. The Committee of Management would not get a perpetual extension even beyond the expiry of the term and, therefore, the order of status quo would not prevent the holding of fresh elections. The learned Single Judge has further held that there was nothing on record to show that the interim order dated 16.6.2008 was served upon the respondent-petitioner herein prior to 23.6.2008 nor any finding to this effect has been recorded by the District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order dated 14/15.5.2009. 16. From a perusal of the counter affidavit which was filed by the appellant in the writ petition, it appears that the aforesaid facts about the service of the order dated 16.6.2008 and being communicated to the District Inspector of Schools as well as to the Election Officer was pleaded in paras 26 and 27 of the counter affidavit which is to the following effect : “26. That said interim order of this Hon’ble Court dated 16.6.2008 was communicated by answering respondent to District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh by communication dated 18.6.2008. Copy whereof is attached herewith as Annexure CA-14 to this affidavit. 27. That said interim order of this Hon’ble Court dated 16.6.2008 was communicated by answering respondent to District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh by communication dated 18.6.2008. Copy whereof is attached herewith as Annexure CA-14 to this affidavit. 27. That despite said state of affairs, in grossest disregard to the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 16.6.2008, the then District Inspector of Schools Aligarh had malafide appointed Sri Ranveer Singh, Principal Government Inter College, Ahraula, Aligarh as Observer for holding of election claimed by petitioner No. 2. In passing the said order, respondent No. 2 wilfully disobeyed order of this Hon’ble Court dated 16.6.2008 communicated to him vide letter dated 18.6.2008 (Annexure CA-14). He also overlooked letter of his predecessor dated 31.5.2008 (Annexure CA-12). Copy of alleged letter of DIOS dated 21.6.2008 is attached herewith as Annexure CA-15 to this affidavit. It is added that no election was held on 13.7.2008 in pursuance of election programme dated 9.6.2008. It was also not held on 23.6.2008.” 17. Not only this there are averments to that effect in the subsequent representation/letters which was filed before the District Inspector of Schools and the Regional Joint Director of Education about which clear averments have been made in paras 28 to 31 of the said counter affidavit. This would demonstrate that such facts were on record before the District Inspector of Schools when he passed the order on 14/18.5.2009. It is therefore evident that there was a clear pleading supported by the document dated 18.6.2008 a copy whereof has already been filed Annexure 10 to the stay application filed in support of the present appeal to demonstrate that the order dated 16.6.2008 had been communicated to the District Inspector of Schools. The aforesaid document was there before the learned Single Judge alongwith the pleadings in the counter affidavit and, apart from this, there is yet another document appended as Annexure 11 filed in support of the stay application to this appeal which indicates the receipt of the communication by the Election Officer on 18.6.2008 itself. This is further corroborated by a recital contained in the order dated 14/18.5.2009 impugned in the writ petition where the District Inspector of School has categorically stated that the order was communicated to the Election Officer. This is further corroborated by a recital contained in the order dated 14/18.5.2009 impugned in the writ petition where the District Inspector of School has categorically stated that the order was communicated to the Election Officer. The finding therefore recorded by the learned Single Judge that there was nothing on record to establish the communication of the said order, does not appear to be correct and is not based on a correct appreciation of the evidence on record. The order had been communicated to the Election Officer and the District Inspector of Schools and was not to be communicated to the respondent writ petitioner. In view of this the conclusion drawn by the District Inspector of Schools in the order dated 14/18.5.2009 cannot be said to be wrong as the aforesaid documents were on record. 18. In our opinion the elections dated 23.6.2008 were in clear violation of the interim order dated 16.6.2008 and any action taken in such violation would be a nullity. 19. We are supported in our view by the following observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh and others v. Harbans Singh and others, (1995) 6 SCC 50 . The relevant paragraph 4 of the said judgment is quoted below : “4. ......... In sum, it did not make any appreciable difference whether property per se had been alienated or a decree pertaining to that property. In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. When the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The Court, in these circumstances has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes.........” 20. The aforesaid decision has been followed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in the case of Smt. Savitri Devi v. Civil Judge (SD), Gorakhpur and others, 2003 (3) AWC 1718 . The relevant paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment is quoted below : “9. The aforesaid decision has been followed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in the case of Smt. Savitri Devi v. Civil Judge (SD), Gorakhpur and others, 2003 (3) AWC 1718 . The relevant paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment is quoted below : “9. Admittedly, there was an order dated 18.8.1992, for both the parties not to alienate any party of the property in dispute. Respondent No. 3 had executed two sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. It is settled legal proposition that sale deeds so executed are a nullity as having been executed in disobedience of the interim order of the Court. In Mulraj v. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj, AIR 1967 SC 1386 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the effect of action taken subsequent to passing of an interim order in its disobedience and held that any action taken in disobedience of the order passed by the Court would be illegal subsequent action would be a nullity. 10. Similar view has been reiterated in Surjit Singh and others v. Harbans Singh and others, 1995 (6) SCC 50 ; Government of A.P. v. Gudepu Sailoo and others, 2000 (4) SCC 625 and Hansraj Tirathram v. Administrator, Municipality Jammu, AIR 1963 Ker 18. Therefore, there is no doubt that the alleged sale deeds are nullity, meaning thereby non est, unenforceable and inexecutable and deserve to be ignored.” 21. The previous elections which had been set up in the year 2004 indicates that the respondent writ petitioner Bhoj Datt Misra had held the elections on 19.9.2004. The said elections had been discarded by the Regional Level Committee vide order dated 26.10.2006. The interim order passed in the writ petition No. 62510 of 2006 challenging the said order, had not been extended after 13.3.2008. In view of this the said Committee elected on 19.9.2004 had become defunct for all practical purposes. In such a situation, there was no occasion for the said Committee to have got the elections held through an Election Officer. 22. The learned Single Judge has drawn an erroneous presumption against the facts on record and has incorrectly framed his opinion on the impact of the interim order dated 16.6.2008 in Writ Petition No. 28348 of 2008. The said interim order clearly directed status quo injuncting the holding of elections or taking of any action in relation thereto. 23. 22. The learned Single Judge has drawn an erroneous presumption against the facts on record and has incorrectly framed his opinion on the impact of the interim order dated 16.6.2008 in Writ Petition No. 28348 of 2008. The said interim order clearly directed status quo injuncting the holding of elections or taking of any action in relation thereto. 23. The Scheme of Administration which has been brought on record contains the procedure of elections in clause 5 thereof. Sub-clause (3) of clause 5, makes a provision that the elections shall be held every four years under the supervision of an Election Officer by a majority of the members of the general body. The first stage of elections is to constitute a 12 member Committee which shall be elected by the general body. The second step of the elections is that these 12 elected members shall from amongst themselves elect six office bearers by a majority of votes. The aforesaid procedure has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and it appears that they themselves have followed the same in the elections dated 23.6.2008 set up by them. 24. What can be clearly seen from the election programme that was published in the newspaper is, that the last date for withdrawal of nominations was fixed for 23.6.2008. It was further provided that polling of votes (Matdan) if necessary would take place in the elections to be held on 13.7.2008. The said date 13.7.2008 was fixed for the date of the election of members of the Committee of Management as well as the election of office bearers. Item No. 5 recites that elections would be declared on 13.7.2008. Item No. 6 in the election programme recites that 12 members so elected as per clause 5(3) of the Scheme of Administration would from amongst themselves elect the six office bearers, the President, Vice President, Manager, Assistant Manager, Treasurer and Auditor. This was to be followed by a meeting of the general body on the same day to confirm the elections. 25. The learned Single Judge while proceeding to examine the procedure of the elections adopted on 23.6.2008 has arrived at the conclusion that there was no necessity to hold the elections on 13.7.2008 but while doing so the learned Single Judge has completely over looked item Nos. 25. The learned Single Judge while proceeding to examine the procedure of the elections adopted on 23.6.2008 has arrived at the conclusion that there was no necessity to hold the elections on 13.7.2008 but while doing so the learned Single Judge has completely over looked item Nos. 6 and 7 of the election programme as declared by the respondent writ petitioners themselves. The said election programme is in two parts keeping in view the two steps of the elections as provided in the Scheme of Administration referred to herein above. The first part of the election of 12 members was to be completed on 23.6.2008 with the withdrawal of nominations. 26. In the instant case the facts that are disclosed by the respondent reveal that there were 16 nominations out of which four nominations were withdrawn as a result whereof only 12 candidates remained in the fray. The learned Single Judge has concluded upon an interpretation of item No. 4 of the election programme that the elections, if necessary, had to be held, meaning thereby in the instant case, there was no necessity of holding of any election at a further date, as upon withdrawal of the four nominations, only 12 candidates remained who were rightly declared elected unopposed. 27. Assuming, though not correct, that the respondent writ petitioner had the right to hold elections, then the learned Single Judge to that extent may be right that there was no necessity of holding any elections of the 12 members of the Committee of Management as only 12 nominations had been filed. However, the learned Single Judge in our opinion fell into error by adopting the same reasoning for the procedure of elections of six office bearers which according to the election programme had to be held on 13.7.2008. The six office bearers have to be elected from amongst the 12 members which is, the second stage of elections. This was fixed for 13.7.2008 and not for 23.6.2008. 28. Apart from this a perusal of the election programme at item No. 7 itself indicates that the election has to be approved and confirmed by the general body which was to be done on 13.7.2008 and not on the last date of the withdrawal of the nominations. This was fixed for 13.7.2008 and not for 23.6.2008. 28. Apart from this a perusal of the election programme at item No. 7 itself indicates that the election has to be approved and confirmed by the general body which was to be done on 13.7.2008 and not on the last date of the withdrawal of the nominations. It is evident that the entire elections have been held from amongst 16 persons who were present on 23.6.2008 and which does not indicate the presence of all the members of the general body. It is obvious that the role of the members of the general body was necessary on 13.7.2008 as well for confirming the elections of the office bearers and the Committee as a whole. Thus the members of the general body who were entitled to participate and who will be presumed to have notice for 13.7.2008 according to the respondent writ petitioners themselves, were clearly denuded of their rights to participate in the confirmation of the elections which might have a direct bearing on the result of the elections. In our opinion the learned Single Judge has completely overlooked the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has incorrectly construed the elections to have been completed on 23.6.2008. 29. We are therefore satisfied that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 14/18.5.2009 did not suffer from any infirmity even though the same had been passed in exercise of powers in relation to the provisions of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971). 30. The District Inspector of School has, therefore, rightly in our opinion, passed an order proposing the appointment of Authorised Controller under the provisions of the said Act which even otherwise was required keeping in view the order passed by the Regional Level Committee dated 26.10.2006. 31. There is yet another aspect of the matter which requires reference relating to the earlier writ petition No. 62518 of 2006 which is still pending. The said writ petition is in respect of a dispute of the elections of the year 2004 and the membership of the General Body. 31. There is yet another aspect of the matter which requires reference relating to the earlier writ petition No. 62518 of 2006 which is still pending. The said writ petition is in respect of a dispute of the elections of the year 2004 and the membership of the General Body. Admittedly the period of elections as set up by the rival contenders and subject matter of consideration of the said writ petition was four years and on a pure arithmetical calculation the period of those elections have already came to an end. 32. Accordingly fresh elections were to be held. The question is as to who would have the right to hold the elections which would be dependant upon the outcome of writ petition No. 62518 of 2006. The Regional Level Committee had not recognised either of the parties and which matter is still sub-judice in the said writ petition. Secondly the Regional Level Committee has also decided the electoral college entitled to participate in the elections which matter is also under scrutiny in the said writ petition. In such a situation until and unless the aforesaid writ petition is finally disposed of, the authorised controller would not be able to hold elections. Apart from this, the pendency of the second writ petition namely 28348 of 2008 which is for a direction to the authorised controller to hold elections would be dependant on the outcome of the first writ petition. We are therefore of the view that the parties should be governed by the orders in the said writ petitions whereafter the holding of elections or otherwise would have to be directed. The learned Single Judge, as a matter of fact, out to have first proceeded to decide the aforesaid two writ petitions before accepting the claim of the respondent-writ petitioners in the present case. 33. Accordingly, in view of the conclusions drawn herein above the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. A copy of this order shall be placed on the record of the writ petitions aforesaid which are pending with a request to the learned single Judge to dispose of the matters at the earliest in order to resolve the dispute relating to the holding of elections at the earliest. 34. The special appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ————