JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijay Singh, J.—I have heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 6.8.09 passed by the Regional Committee, Meerut region Meerut and the order dated 24.6.09 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Meerut region Meerut. Vide order dated 6.8.09 the Regional Committee had derecognized the election of the Committee of Management, Intermediate College, Kakod, district Bulandshahr pursuant to the election dated 22.12.08. Through this election, the petitioner was elected as a Manager of Committee. While passing this order a direction was also issued for holding fresh election of the Committee of Management within a period of two months by the Authorised Controller of the Institution. Whereas by order dated 24.6.09 the Joint Director of Education has appointed Authorised Controller in the said institution on the recommendation of District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr dated 8.6.09. 3. It appears that election of Committee of Management was held on 22.12.08 of which the petitioner was elected as Manager. The election was approved by the Regional Committee on 3.1.09. This order of approval was recalled by the District Inspector of Schools on 14.3.09 (Sri Bhuri Singh, District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr). This order was challenged through Writ Petition No. 21427/09. This Court has interfered with the matter and not only stayed the operation of the order dated 14.3.09 passed by the District Inspector of Schools withdrawing the recognition/approval of the petitioner’s election but also directed the District inspector of Schools not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as a Manager of the institution. 4. Aggrieved by this order the respondent No. 4 has filed a Special Appeal No.719/09 which was dismissed by this Court on 15.5.09 and the writ petition was allowed by quashing the order dated 14.3.09 passed by the District Inspector of Schools withdrawing the recognition/approval of the petitioner’s election. While dismissing the appeal, however, this Court has directed the Regional Committee to consider the application of respondent No. 4 for recalling the order dated 3.1.09. 5. After the order of special appeal it appears that the District Inspector of Schools has made recommendation for appointment of Authorised Controller in the petitioner’s institution. While dismissing the appeal, however, this Court has directed the Regional Committee to consider the application of respondent No. 4 for recalling the order dated 3.1.09. 5. After the order of special appeal it appears that the District Inspector of Schools has made recommendation for appointment of Authorised Controller in the petitioner’s institution. Thereafter, the Joint Director of Education has appointed Authorised Controller vide order dated 24.6.09 and thereafter recall application of respondent No. 4 was taken up for disposal by the Regional Committee of which the District Inspector of Schools namely Sri Bhuri Singh was made a member. 6. Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned order reliance has been placed upon a report of Committee dated 23.5.08 headed by Sri Bhuri Singh in which he has reported that there are 56 valid members of the society. He has also submitted that one of the principles of natural justice is that no person shall be a Judge of his own cause or the adjudicating authority must be impartial and must act without any kind of bias. The said Rule is based on the principle that justice not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done. This could be possible only when a Judge or adjudicating authority decide the matter impartially and without carrying any kind of bias. It may be pecuniary, personal or there may be bias as to the subject matter. In the present case Sri Bhuri Singh, District Inspector of Schools was a member of the Committee which has found 56 valid members to which the petitioner has made his objection and that is still undisposed of. Secondly, even after passing of the order by this Court, staying the operation of the order dated 14.3.09 withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner’s election and even after allowing the writ petition vide order dated 15.5.09 by the Special Appeal Court, he has made recommendation to the Joint Director of Education for appointment of Authorised Controller and not permitted the petitioner to function in spite of the clear direction of this Court in the writ petition. Thereafter he sat as a member of Regional Committee and passed the impugned order. In his submission, the impugned order not only suffers from the breach of principles of natural justice, but also suffers from bias. Therefore, it deserves to be quashed. 7. Thereafter he sat as a member of Regional Committee and passed the impugned order. In his submission, the impugned order not only suffers from the breach of principles of natural justice, but also suffers from bias. Therefore, it deserves to be quashed. 7. Refuting the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate submitted that in the present election proceedings 146 members have participated whereas in the report of Committee dated 23.5.08 only 56 members were found to be genuine and valid. In his submission Sri Jagdishwar Singh Tomar had continuously been functioning as a Manager and thereafter Authorised Controller was appointed, therefore, there was no scope to induct new members and the election in question is unsustainable as it has not been held in accordance with the societies bye laws. He has also submitted that no objection has been filed against the report dated 23.5.08. In his submission the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and it should not be interfered with because Sri Bhuri Singh has been member of the Committee. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the parties has agreed for final disposal of the present writ petition, therefore, with the consent of the parties counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record without discussing the other points involved in this case I find it appropriate to discuss the principle of breach of natural justice and bias. In case it is found that impugned decision is biased one and suffers from breach of principles of natural justice, the other points involved in this case need not be discussed. 9. It has not been disputed either by learned Standing Counsel or by Sri Saxena that Sri Bhuri Singh, the present District Inspector of Schools in the capacity of associated District Inspector of Schools has participated in the inquiry and as a Chairman of the enquiry committee has submitted the report dated 23.5.08 in which 56 members were found to be genuine and valid and it has been made basis for passing the impugned order dated 8.6.09. It could also not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the election of the petitioner’s institution was approved on 3.1.09 by the then District Inspector of Schools Smt. Indu Bala Ghosh and subsequently, on the instance of respondent No. 4 the present District Inspector of Schools has withdrawn the order dated 3.1.09 on 14.3.09. This order was stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 21427/09 and the direction was given to the District Inspector of Schools not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as a Manager of the institution. The special appeal against the said order was dismissed and the writ petition was allowed after quashing the order dated 14.3.09 passed by the District Inspector of Schools even then the present District Inspector of Schools who is member of the Regional Committee has recommended for appointment of the Authorised Controller and associated himself in the process of decision making body as member of the Committee and passed the impugned order. The Apex Court in the case of Amar Nath Chowdhary v. Braithwaite & Company Ltd. and others, JT 2002 V. 1 SC 156 while dealing such mater has found that this kind of order are not only biased but also amounts to have been passed in breach of principles of natural justice. In paragraphs 6 and 8, the Apex Court has observed as under : (6) ..........“Where an authority earlier had taken a decision, he is disqualified to sit in appeal against his own decision, as he already prejudged the matter otherwise, such an appeal would be termed an appeal from caesar to caesar and filing of an appeal would be an exercise in futility. In that view of the matter, in the present case, fair play demanded that Shri Krishnaswami, the then chairman-cummanaging director of the company ought not to have participated in the deliberations of the meeting of the board when the board heard and decided the appeal of the appellant. (para-6) (8) ........The board could have constituted a committee of the board/management or any officers of the company by excluding chairman-cum-managing director of the company and delegated any of its power, including the appellate power, to such a committee to eliminate any allegation of bias against such an appellate authority. (para-6) (8) ........The board could have constituted a committee of the board/management or any officers of the company by excluding chairman-cum-managing director of the company and delegated any of its power, including the appellate power, to such a committee to eliminate any allegation of bias against such an appellate authority. It is therefore, not correct to contend that rule against bias is not available in the present case in view of doctrine of necessity’. We are , therefore, of the view that reliance of the doctrine of necessity in the present case is totally misplaced. (para 8)” 10. After going through the records I am of the view that the impugned order suffers from breach of principles of natural justice and biased one as Sri Bhuri Singh has associated himself throughout and vitiated the decision making process. 11. In view of that writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 24.6.09 passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, Meerut region, Meerut as well as the order dated 6.8.09 passed by the Regional Committee are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Regional Committee to pass a fresh order on the recall application of respondent No. 4 after hearing all concerned in accordance with law. It is also provided that while constituting the Regional Committee some other District Inspector of Schools of other district be made a member of the Committee and the Committee shall decide the matter expeditiously, if possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. It is further directed that in the meantime the petitioner shall be permitted to function as a Manager of the Committee of Management. ————