JUDGMENT PRADEEP KANT and R.R. AWASTHI, JJ.-Heard the Counsel for the appellant Sri O. P. Srivastava and Sri P.K. Khare for the respondents. 2. The present litigation is an example, how the interested persons try to have control over the affairs of the institution and for that matter, they do not even hesitate in initiating and filing successive writ petitions, knowing fully well that the writ jurisdiction is not the correct forum. 3. In the instant case, the election of the Committee of Management, Jan Samaj Vidya Peeth Inter College, Digambarpur, District Faizabad, a recognised institution under the provisions of the educational law and referable to D.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees, Act, 1971, is in dispute. 4. Though the litigation is continuing for the last several years, but the elections said to have been held on 20.6.2004 are relevant for the present controversy. 5. In the election held on 20.6.2004, the present appellant Keshav Ram Verma was elected as President. The Committee of Management through respondent Ram Tej Verma challenged the said election by filing Writ Petition No. 2555 (MS) of 2004. The Committee of Management through its Manager Amrit Lal Verma also filed Writ Petition No. 3085 (MS) of 2004, as he was aggrieved by the non-attestation of his signatures. The said Writ Petition No.3085 (MS) of 2004 was decided on 28.7.2004, in which a direction was issued to the Regional Committee to take a decision in the matter of recognition of the elections aforesaid, within a given time. 6. The writ petition filed by Committee of Management through Ram Tej Verma was decided by an order on 24.6.2004 with a direction that their representation be decided by the Joint Director or Education, Faizabad Division, Faizabad within a given time. In pursuance of the directives aforesaid, the Region. I Committee, through Joint Director of Education, passed an order dated 19.1.0005, which order was passed after hearing both the parties, wherein the elections said to have been held on 20.6.2004, in which Keshav Ram Verma was elected as President and Amrit Lal Verma was elected as Manager, were found to be legal and valid. It was also found that the Committee said to have been elected by Ram Tej Verma on 18.1.2004 was invalid and was having no legal sanctity. It was also found that the Committee said to have been elected by Ram Tej Verma on 18.1.2004 was invalid and was having no legal sanctity. Thereafter, the elections in question have been held on 19.6.2005, as the term of the Committee of Management elected on 20.6.2004 was only for one year. This election held on 19.6.2005 became the subject-matter of the present writ petition, out of which the present special appeal arises. 7. Sri P.K. Khare informs that against the order dated 19.6.L005, a writ petition has been filed bearing number 449 (MS) of 2005, which has been dismissed as infructuous, in view of the subsequent developments and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the present writ petition. 8. The writ petition preferred by the respondent challenging the election dated 19.6.2005 has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 21.5.2009. 9. Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant, assailing the aforesaid order, submitted that the learned Single Judge even without recording any finding as to the illegality in the order passed by the Regional Committee dated 30.8.2009, has remanded the matter to the Regional Committee after noting the arguments of the respondent (petitioner in the writ petition) that while passing the aforesaid order dated 30.8.2009, the Regional Committee did not take into consideration the representation/objections preferred by the respondent and though it is an admitted fact that objections/representation were filed by the respondent before the Regional Committee. 10. A perusal of the order passed by the Regional Committee reveals that it had taken into consideration the complaints/objections said to have been filed by the respondent on 3.6.2005, 10.6.2005, 30.6.2005 and 14.7.2005. This reveals that the respondents have filed two objections/representations even prior to the election of 19.6.2005 and two objections after the elections aforesaid. A report was called for, from the District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad, who mentioned in his report that the objections raised by the respondents were baseless. 11. This reveals that the respondents have filed two objections/representations even prior to the election of 19.6.2005 and two objections after the elections aforesaid. A report was called for, from the District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad, who mentioned in his report that the objections raised by the respondents were baseless. 11. The Regional Committee, after considering the entire material on record including the papers submitted by Ram Tej Verma, the respondent and the complaints alongwith annexures and after perusing and examining the same, came to the conclusion that previous Committee of Management was elected for a period of one year and hereafter the election have taken place in the presence of an Observer, duly appointed by the District Inspector of Schools viz. Assistant District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad on 19.6.2005. The elections were held by the general body with the specific agenda in the meeting of the general body. 12. The Regional Committee, after examining the record of election and considering the objections raised, came to the conclusion that the elections on 19.6.2005, were properly held and were legally valid and after recording such a finding, the signatures of Amrit Lal Verma as Manager, were attested. 13. Sri P.K. Khare, defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge, submitted that, as a matter of fact, the Regional Committee did not address itself on the issues raised in the representations and merely saying that the objections were filed and they have been considered, does not mean that they were actually considered' and, as a matter of fact, reasons ought to have been recorded by the Regional Committee for rejecting the objections made by the respondents. These observations have been made by the learned Single Judge also. 14. On a query being put to the learned Counsel for the respondents that under which provision these objections/representations were made before the Regional Committee and what was the relief claimed, the learned Counsel could not mention any specific provision of law but submitted that it was a case which was covered by section 16-A (7) of V.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and, therefore, in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Committee of Management and another v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra and others 1 1. 2005 (23) LCD 441 (FB)=2004 (57) ALR 405., the validity of the election should have been tested by the Regional Committee before attesting the signatures. 15. We have gone through the pleadings in the writ petition as well as in the contents of representations/objections said to have been filed against the election aforesaid, before the Regional Committee, and we find that the learned Counsel for the respondents has failed to point out any averment in either of the two documents, where the respondents have claimed their right as rival Committees of Management, that too on the basis of any election said to have been held by them before or after 19.6.2005. 16. Section 16-A (7) says that whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an institution, persons found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, upon such enquiry as is deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may, for purposes of this Act, be recognised to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a Court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise. The proviso to the aforesaid section says that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub-section, afford reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representation in writing. 17. The explanation attached to the said section says that in determining the question as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties, the Scheme of Administration approved under sub-section (5) and other relevant circumstances. 18. For attracting the provisions aforesaid, there has to be a dispute between two rival Committees of Management, both claiming control over the affairs of the institution and when reference is made to the Deputy Director of Education, before passing an order, he shall afford reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing, and shall consider the pleas raised therein. 19. For arriving to a conclusion as to which party was in actual control over ~he institution, ancillary finding on the validity of the election may have to be resolved, which would not be without jurisdiction. 20. 19. For arriving to a conclusion as to which party was in actual control over ~he institution, ancillary finding on the validity of the election may have to be resolved, which would not be without jurisdiction. 20. The Full Bench in the case of Committee of Managt'1rzent and another (supra) on considering the meaning and import of section 16-A (7), observed as under: "From the aforesaid discussion, we find that the Deputy Director of Education, in deciding as to which of the rival Committees of Management is in actual control of the affairs of the institution, discharges quasi-judicial powers and is required to act fairly, reasonably and to follow the principles of natural justice. He order must be supported by reasons, considering the relevant material and on objective considerations." 21. The term 'actual control' has also been discussed in the said judgment and the questions which have been framed have been answered in Para 36 as follows: (1) The Regional Deputy Director of Education, while deciding a dispute under section 16-A (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, exercises quasi-judicial powers, and not purely administrative powers. , (2) The Regional Deputy Director of Education while deciding a dispute under section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921, must decide the question of validity of the elections prima facie, in deciding the question of actual control over the affairs of the Institution. (3) Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that the election of both the rival committees are invalid, he is not required to decide the question of actual control of recognize one or the other Committee of Management, and instead he shall, where the Scheme of Administration provides for appointment of an Administrator (Prabandh Sanchalak), appoint an Administrator with the direction to hold elections expeditiously in accordance with the scheme of Administration, and where there is no such provision in the Scheme of Administration he shall appoint an Authorized Controller who shall expeditiously hold elections to the Committee of Management and shall manage the affairs of the Institution until a lawfully elected Committee of Management is available for taking over the management." 22. Thus, it is clear that when there is a dispute between two rival Committees or group of persons and the Regional Committee decides the same exercising quasi-judicial powers, the Regional Committee must decide the validity of elections prima facie, while recording a finding on the actual control over the affairs of the institution. 23. Instant case is the case where the respondents did not file any objections before the Regional Committee claiming control over the affairs of the institution nor they alleged that they are the legally elected Committee of Management after the election of 20.6.2004. The respondents have been challenging the elections of the petitioner throughout, without claiming their own right of managing the affairs of the institution. As a matter of fact, the record reveals that in the year 2004, when the election was held in which the appellant was elected as President, challenge was made to the said election and the appellant Keshav Ram Verma also filed writ petition, since his signatures were not attested. The two writ petitions were decided by separate orders, with the direction to the Joint Director of Education to decide the matter. 24. The Joint Director of Education held that the election held on 20.6.2004 in which Keshav Ram Verma was elected as President was a validly held election and the elections held by the respondent in January, 2004 were not valid elections. Thereafter, within the term of the so elected Committee of Management, fresh elections were held on 19.6.2005 by the present appellant, which were held to be valid elections and the elected office bearers were in actual control of the affairs of the institution. That being so, there was no occasion for the Regional Committee to record a finding on the question of actual control while considering the question of attestation of signatures. 25. The representation/ objections which were filed by the respondents also did not raise any plea which can be referred to the provisions of section 16-A (7) of the Act, and in fact, they raised claims only regarding the validity of membership and also the alleged irregularity in the elections. 26. 25. The representation/ objections which were filed by the respondents also did not raise any plea which can be referred to the provisions of section 16-A (7) of the Act, and in fact, they raised claims only regarding the validity of membership and also the alleged irregularity in the elections. 26. The Regional Committee was thus, under no obligation to address itself to the issue of actual control over the affairs of the institution, moreso, when no reference/representation was made under section-16-A (7) and only a dispute regarding the election and its validity was raised; before the Regional' Committee, only to contend that the elections be not rerognised and signatures be not attested. Further there was no dispute regarding actual control over the affairs of the institution as the present appellants were already in office and control, in pursuance of the elections held on 20.6.2004. 27. The Regional Committee came to the conclusion after perusing the record and considering all the issues, that the elections were rightly held and that there was no merit in the objections. After recording this finding, the signatures of the elected office bearers were attested. 28. When an issue is decided by the competent authority, normally the High Court would not relegate the petitioner or for that matter, any patty, to the same very authority, for deciding it afresh either by allowing the petitioner to make a fresh representation or by directing the concerned authority to reconsider the same issue, which has already been considered and decided by the same authority. 29. In a case even after an observation being made by the statutory authority that the representation/objections filed by the respondents were considered, if the Court finds that objections were actually not considered or some issues which required consideration were not addressed upon, then in that case, the Court would record a finding, prima fade, to show the mistake committed by the competent authority in dealing with the representation and may refer the matter to the authority concerned for being decided afresh, but without recording any finding that the order passed by the statutory authority suffers from' any error and also without showing any procedural or any other illegality committed by the statutory authority, the direction for deciding the same issue again, would be of no use, nor desirable. The effect of such an order will be that the statutory authority either is made to believe that the order passed by it, was erroneous and, therefore, necessarily a different view has to be taken and/or it also gives an opportunity to him to resile from its own view by giving different reason, though once a decision is taken, may be, administrative or quasi-judicial, such a decision cannot be changed, without there being any valid reason. Apart from this such a direction only increases litigations and gives new avenues for challenging the orders passed by the authorities again and again on the same representation. 30. No error having been pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the order passed by the Regional Committee, only on the argument of the respondents, that their objections were not considered by the Regional Committee, the order passed by the said Committee could neither have been set aside nor the matter could have been sent for reconsideration. 31. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Regional Committee suffer from manifest error or that the Regional Committee did not consider the pleas/representation made by the respondents, while passing the order dated 30.8.2005. 32. If the respondents were aggrieved by the elections, they ought to have approached the appropriate forum, may be the Civil Court or any other forum as may be permissible under law, which they can still do in accordance with law, if permissible otherwise also. 33. We, for the reasons aforesaid, set aside the order dated 21.5.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. Special Appeal Allowed.