JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management, Samajwadi Inter College, Gabhiram, District Jaunpur and Ram Prasad Singh claiming himself to be its Manager have filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 9th February, 2009 passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak of the Samajwadi Inter College, Gabhiram, District Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institution’) by which he has finalised the list of 27 members of the General Body entitled to participate in the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 25th/28th March, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur by which he has approved the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 28th February, 2009 in which Brijendra Singh was elected as the Manager. 2. It is stated that the Institution is recognised under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and has its own Scheme of Administration. The term of the Committee of Management of the Institution is provided as three years but the office bearers can continue for a further period of one month. However, if within the period of three years and one month, the newly elected Committee of Management does not take charge, the existing Committee of Management shall automatically cease to exist and a Prabandh Sanchalak shall be nominated by the Joint Director of Education who shall exercise the powers of the Committee of Management of the Institution and hold the election for constituting the Committee of Management. 3. In the election held on 22nd October, 2004, Bhagwati Prasad Singh was elected as the Manager. Fresh election was, thereafter, held on 21st October, 2007 in which Bhagwati Prasad Singh was elected as the President and petitioner No. 2-Ram Prasad Singh was elected as the Manager. Respondent No. 5-Brijendra Singh also claimed that election was held on 9th January, 2008 in which he was elected as the Manager. The District Inspector of Schools forwarded the election papers to the Regional Level Committee. The Regional Level Committee approved the election of the Committee of Management with Brijendra Singh as the Manager and the election of the petitioner-Committee of Management was discarded. 4. The District Inspector of Schools forwarded the election papers to the Regional Level Committee. The Regional Level Committee approved the election of the Committee of Management with Brijendra Singh as the Manager and the election of the petitioner-Committee of Management was discarded. 4. This decision of the Regional Level Committee was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10739 of 2008 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2008 and it was held that none of the elections were held in accordance with law. A direction was, therefore, given to the Joint Director of Education to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak for holding fresh elections within six weeks. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court, the Joint Director of Education appointed the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the District Inspector of Schools as the Prabandh Sanchalak by the order dated 23rd April, 2008 and he was directed to hold the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution. The Prabandh Sanchalak issued a notice dated 25th July, 2009 to the parties demanding the list of members of the General Body so that the electoral college could be finalised for the purposes of holding the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution. The Prabandh Sanchalak then finalised the electoral college of 32 members by the order dated 15th October, 2008. 6. Respondent No. 5-Brijendra Singh, however, submitted a representation to the Joint Director of Education against the preparation of the aforesaid electoral college and for change of the Prabandh Sanchalak. This representation was forwarded by the Joint Director of Education to the Prabandh Sanchalak who issued fresh notices dated 10th November, 2008 to the parties. The petitioners submitted a detailed reply that the Prabandh Sanchalak had no jurisdiction to review or recall the decision taken by him on 15th October, 2008 and a prayer was also made that the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution may be held on the basis of the list finalised by the Prabandh Sanchalak on 15th October, 2008. 7. The petitioners then filed Writ Petition No. 6270 of 2009 for quashing the proceedings initiated by the Prabandh Sanchalak by the notice dated 10th November, 2008. 7. The petitioners then filed Writ Petition No. 6270 of 2009 for quashing the proceedings initiated by the Prabandh Sanchalak by the notice dated 10th November, 2008. This petition was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 4th February, 2009 and the relevant observations are as follows : “Therefore, the answer to the question before this Court as to whether issuance of notice to the parties for hearing an order to rectify a mistake amounts to review of his own order by the authority concerned or not is in the negative. To my mind, the list of 32 members of the electoral College was correct or not could have been represented by the parties before the higher authority, who has marked it to the authorized controller to look into the grievance of respondent No. 5. The order dated 15.10.2008 finalizing the list of members is not a judicial order, therefore, notice for hearing for “correction” of list is not review of the said order. The Prabandh Sanchalak is duty bound to hold election of the Committee of Management on the basis of correct list of members of the electoral college. The order impugned in the present writ petition before the Court being mere a notice by which the authorized controller has called for certain documents so that he may correct any mistake in the list which might have inadvertently crept in the impugned order of constitution of electoral college comprising of 32 members. The Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Prabandh Sanchalak is directed to finalize the list of members within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by either of the parties. He will also ensure that the elections are held within a period of two weeks thereafter.” 8. Thereafter, the Prabandh Sanchalak by the order dated 9th February, 2009 approved the list of 27 members submitted by respondent No. 5-Brijendra Singh and fixed 28th February, 2009 for holding the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution. He will also ensure that the elections are held within a period of two weeks thereafter.” 8. Thereafter, the Prabandh Sanchalak by the order dated 9th February, 2009 approved the list of 27 members submitted by respondent No. 5-Brijendra Singh and fixed 28th February, 2009 for holding the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution. This order dated 9th February, 2009 was challenged by the petitioners by filing Writ Petition No. 11193 of 2009 which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 26th February, 2009 with the following observations: “In the present case the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the Prabandh Sanchalak proceeding to review the electoral college within was finalised an earlier occasion. It has been pointed out by Sri K. Sahi, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 5, that process of election has already commenced and the date for nomination etc. has been fixed. Since election process has commenced, as such this Court refuses to interfere in the matter. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to raise their objection before the District Inspector of Schools at the time when said authority proceeds to accord approval to the election. Once objections are raised by the petitioners, the District Inspector of Schools shall give thoughtful consideration to the objections so raised with regard to validity of the electoral college and shall act strictly in accordance with law. In terms of above observation and direction present petition is disposed of.” 9. The election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 28th February, 2009 in which Brijendra Singh was elected as the Manager. The petitioners filed objections before the District Inspector of Schools including the objection that the Prabandh Sanchalak could not have reviewed the order dated 15th October, 2008. The District Inspector of Schools, however, by the order dated 25th/28th March, 2009 rejected the objections filed by the petitioners and approved the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 28th February, 2009. 10. The District Inspector of Schools, however, by the order dated 25th/28th March, 2009 rejected the objections filed by the petitioners and approved the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 28th February, 2009. 10. A perusal of the order dated 25th/28th March, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools shows that the District Inspector of Schools has upheld the list of members of the General Body finalised by the Prabandh Sanchalak on 9th February, 2009 on the ground that the election of the Committee of Management of the Society had been held on the basis of this list of members and the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society had been registered and the registration of the Society had also been renewed on this basis. The order recites that 29 members (two members had died subsequently) had also participated in the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution earlier held on 9th January, 2008 which had been approved by the Regional Level Committee on 12th February, 2008 and Ram Prasad Singh had not raised any objection about the participation of these 27 members in the writ petition filed by him to challenge the said order dated 12th February, 2008. 11. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners assisted by Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel submitted that the order dated 9th February, 2009 by which the list of 27 members of the General Body was finalised deserves to be set aside inasmuch the electoral College of 32 members had earlier been finalised by the Prabandh Sanchalak by the order dated 15th October, 2008 and this order could not have been reviewed merely because the Joint Director of Education had forwarded the objections filed by Brijendra Singh against the said list to the Prabandh Sanchalak. He further submitted that the Prabandh Sanchalak committed an error in holding that the list dated 15th October, 2008 was a provisional list against which objections were invited since the said list was a final list. It is his submission that the Prabandh Sanchalak as well as the District Inspector of Schools committed an illegality in placing reliance upon the list of 29 members of the General Body on the basis of which the elections were held. It is his submission that the Prabandh Sanchalak as well as the District Inspector of Schools committed an illegality in placing reliance upon the list of 29 members of the General Body on the basis of which the elections were held. He further submitted that the finding recorded by the District Inspector of Schools that the election of the Committee of Management of the Society was earlier held from these 29 members is perverse as there was no evidence before the District Inspector of Schools to come to such a conclusion. It is also his submission that no reliance could have been placed by the Joint Director of Education on the affidavit filed by Shiv Prasad Singh (the outgoing President) who is none other than the father of Brijendra Singh for doubting the validity of the meetings held on 25th February, 2007 and 1st April, 2007 in which 10 new members of the General Body had been enrolled. 12. Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, however, submitted that the issue, as to whether the list dated 15th October, 2008 published by the Prabandh Sanchalak had attained finality or not, had been decided by this Court by the judgment and order dated 4th February, 2009 rendered in Writ Petition No. 6270 of 2009 that had been filed by the petitioners for quashing the notice dated 10th November, 2008 issued by the Prabandh Sanchalak. He further states that the list of 27 members dated 9th February, 2009 had been finalised by the Prabandh Sanchalak after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and the Prabandh Sanchalak was justified in rejecting the enrollment of 10 new members by the resolution dated 1st April, 2007 of the Committee of Management, particularly when two different resolutions, both dated 1st April, 2007, had been placed by the petitioners. 13. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate to first refer to the order dated 15th October, 2008 passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak by which he has finalised the list of 32 members of the General Body pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 8th April, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 10739 of 2008. 15. 15. The Prabandh Sanchalak noticed that by the order dated 25th July, 2008 both the parties were required to submit the list of member of the General Body of the Society. Ram Prasad Singh (petitioner) submitted a list of 34 members of the General Body, while Brijendra Singh (respondent) submitted a list of 29 members. He noticed that in the said two lists, 24 members were common and therefore, there was no dispute between the parties regarding these 24 members. He, therefore, accepted these 24 persons as members of the General Body. 16. He then considered the validity of the 5 additional members included in the list submitted by respondent-Brijendra Singh namely (i) Vibha Singh, (ii) Sudha Singh, (iii) Sadhana Singh, (iv) Geeta Singh and (v) Manisha Singh. In respect of these five additional members, the Prabandh Sanchalak found that Brijendra Singh had not produced any receipt issued by the Manager for deposit of the membership fee and nor any resolution of the Committee of Management or the General Body regarding acceptance of their membership was produced and nor was their any evidence to show that membership amount had been deposited in the Cash Book of the Institution. He, therefore, rejected the claim of Brijendra Singh regarding these five members. 17. The Prabandh Sanchalak then examined the claim of the 10 additional members in the list submitted by the petitioner-Ram Prasad Singh. He noticed that in the Scheme of Administration of the Institution there is a provision under which the Committee of Management, six months before the expiry of its term, can enroll new members after publishing a notice in the newspapers. In such a case the receipt of deposit of the membership fee is issued by the Manager under his signatures and the membership should be approved by the Committee of Management three months prior to the election. In this connection, the Prabandh Sanchalak found from the records that the earlier Committee of Management which was elected on 22nd October, 2004 in its meeting held on 25th February, 2007, 8 months prior to the expiry of the period of its term on 22nd October, 2007, at resolution No. 2 decided to enroll new members and the notice was also published in the newspapers on 1st March, 2007. Ten persons submitted the membership fee and the receipts were issued by the Manager. Ten persons submitted the membership fee and the receipts were issued by the Manager. The Committee of Management in its meeting held on 1st April, 2007 accepted these 10 persons as members of the Society and three months prior to the election, the final list of members was communicated to the members of the General Body. The membership fees of these 10 persons were deposited in the Cash Book and the Manager had verified the two entries made on 7th March, 2007 and 8th March, 2007. The Prabandh Sanchalak, therefore, accepted the list of 34 members submitted by the petitioner but as two members namely Kamla Singh and Bhagwati Prasad Singh had died subsequently, he published the final list of 32 members of the General Body. 18. It transpires that the respondent moved a representation before the Joint Director of Education against the finalisation of the aforesaid list of 32 members of the General Body by the Prabandh Sanchalak on 15th October, 2008 and the Joint Director of Education merely marked the representation to the Prabandh Sanchalak who thereafter issued the notice dated 10th November, 2008 to the parties for determining the electoral College. 19. Subsequently, by the order dated 9th February, 2009 the Prabandh Sanchalak finalised the list of 27 members of the General Body. According to the Prabandh Sanchalk, only a tentative list of 34 members was published on 15th October, 2008 and objections were invited. He has also noted that Brijendra Singh had filed objections to the list of 34 members submitted by the petitioner-Ram Prasad Singh pointing out that the addition of 10 members to the common list of 24 members was not correct since the meetings held on 25th February, 2007 and 1st April, 2007, in which these 10 members were enrolled, was fictitious in view of the affidavits filed by Shiv Prasad Singh, the earlier President of the Committee of Management of the Institution and certain other persons. On the other hand, the list of 29 members submitted by the respondent-Brijendra Singh which consisted of 9 life members and 20 ordinary members was a true copy of the list submitted before the Assistant Registrar alongwith the annual list of members of the Committee of Management of the Society for the year 2006. On the other hand, the list of 29 members submitted by the respondent-Brijendra Singh which consisted of 9 life members and 20 ordinary members was a true copy of the list submitted before the Assistant Registrar alongwith the annual list of members of the Committee of Management of the Society for the year 2006. The Prabandh Sanchalak also noticed that Brijendra Singh was in possession of the original renewal certificate dated 28th August, 2006 of the Society and even in the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held in January, 2008, these 29 members had participated. This election was approved by the Regional Level Committee on 12th February, 2008 and though the decision of the Regional Level Committee was set aside by the High Court by the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2008 but in the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the said order dated 12th February, 2008, they had not challenged the validity of the electoral college. He further observed that even earlier the District Inspector of Schools, while granting approval to the holding of the election by the order dated 9th May, 2008, had directed for holding the election from these 29 members. The Prabandh Sanchalak, therefore, by the impugned order dated 9th February, 2009, modified the earlier order dated 15th October, 2008 by finalising the list of 27 members. 20. The respondents have also referred to the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 25th/28th March, 2009 by which the objections filed by the petitioners against the order dated 9th February, 2009 passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak were rejected. The District Inspector of Schools has also placed reliance upon the affidavits filed by the outgoing President of the Committee of Management and certain other persons in coming to the conclusion that new members could not have been enrolled in meetings, which according to the President had not been called and nor were they held in the College premises. The District Inspector of Schools has also placed reliance upon the list of members of the General Body of the Society which the respondents claim to have submitted with the papers before the Assistant Registrar. 21. It is, therefore, seen that there is no dispute about the 24 members of the General Body of the Institution though two such members have died in the meantime. 21. It is, therefore, seen that there is no dispute about the 24 members of the General Body of the Institution though two such members have died in the meantime. According to the petitioners, 10 new members had been enrolled in the meetings held on 25th February, 2007 and 1st April, 2007, while according to respondent, five members (entirely different from the 10 members enrolled by the petitioners) had been enrolled. Thus, according to the petitioners, the list consisting of 32 members is valid, while according to the respondents, the list consisting of 27 members is valid. 22. When the notice dated 10th November, 2008 was issued by the Prabandh Sanchalak, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 6270 of 2009. The Court noticed that respondent No. 5-Brijendra Singh had contended that notice was issued since there was some mistake in the electoral college earlier determined by the Prabandh Sanchalak. It is for this reason that the Court examined whether issuance of notice to the parties for rectifying a mistake would amount to review of the order. The Court pointed out that whether the list of 32 members of the electoral College was correct or not could have been represented by the parties before the Higher Authority and, therefore, notice for “correction” of the list is not review of the order. It is for this reason that the Court observed that the order impugned, being merely a notice, by which the Authorized Controller had called for certain documents so that he may correct the mistake in the list which might have inadvertently crept in the impugned order, did not call any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 23. The impugned order dated 9th February, 2009 passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak does not point out any mistake in the earlier order dated 15th October, 2008 and infact proceeds to examine the matter as if he was deciding the electoral College for the first time. What needs to be noticed is that the Prabandh Sanchalak has began by observing that the earlier list was a tentative list to which objections were invited, though it was a final list. What needs to be noticed is that the Prabandh Sanchalak has began by observing that the earlier list was a tentative list to which objections were invited, though it was a final list. In the first order dated 15th October, 2008, the Prabandh Sanchalak found from the documents on record that the petitioner-Committee of Management had enrolled 10 new members in the meetings held on 25th February, 2007 and 1st April, 2007 in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. In this connection he found that the receipts of deposit of membership fees had been issued by the Manager and the amount had also been entered in the Cash Book of the Institution. In the subsequent, the order dated 9th February, 2009 the Prabandh Sanchalak has discarded the membership of these 10 members on the ground that an affidavit had been filed by the outgoing President that the meetings of the Committee of Management held on 25th February, 2007 and 1st April, 2007 were fictitious since the meeting of the Committee of Management could have been called only by the President but, according to the President, he had not called any meeting and no meeting of the Committee of Management was held on 25th February, 2007 in the College premises. This, according to him, created doubts about the holding of the meeting on 25th February, 2007. Likewise, doubts have also been raised about the subsequent meeting held on 1st April, 2007 in which the membership was confirmed. The Prabandhh Sanchalak also observed that alongwith the papers submitted by Brijendra Singh for renewal of the registration of the Society in 2006, list of 29 members of the General Body was enclosed and the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was also held in January, 2008 from this list of 29 members, which election had been approved by the Regional Level Committee, though the decision of the Regional Level Committee was set aside by the High Court but in the judgment there is no observation that this was not a valid list. 24. 24. However, what needs to be noticed is that in the order dated 9th February, 2009, the Prabandh Sanchalak has not mentioned what was the mistake in the earlier order passed by him on 15th October, 2008 in which it was found by him, as a fact, that 10 new members had been validly enrolled in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution since notice was published in the newspapers, these 10 persons had submitted the annual membership fee, the receipt had been issued by the Manager and the subscription amount had also been deposited in the Cash Book of the Institution. What has weighed with the Prabandh Sanchalak in the subsequent order is the affidavit filed by the erstwhile President of the Committee of Management of the Institution, Shiv Prasad Singh, but he has failed to notice that Shiv Prasad Singh was an interested person since he is none other than the father of Brijendra Singh, who is respondent No. 5 in the present petition. The Prabandh Sanchalak has just accepted the averments made in the affidavit, without even considering the other documents on record on which he had placed reliance in the earlier order dated 15th October, 2008. 25. This apart, for accepting the enrollment of the five additional members in the list submitted by respondent-Brijendra Singh, the Prabandh Sanchalak has merely relied upon a list of members of the General Body of the Society which may have been enclosed alongwith the annual list of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society for the year 2006 before the Assistant Registrar. It needs to be mentioned that under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the Assistant Registrar is required to register the list of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society and the list of members of the General Body is not required to be registered. 26. It needs to be mentioned that under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the Assistant Registrar is required to register the list of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society and the list of members of the General Body is not required to be registered. 26. The case of the petitioners is that infact in the meeting of the General Body held on 25th February, 2007, petitioner No. 2-Ram Prasad Singh was elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society for the residuary period after removal of Bhagwati Prasad Singh and the papers were submitted before the Assistant Registrar with the amended list of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society which was registered on 7th June, 2007 and subsequently petitioner No. 2-Ram Prasad Singh also submitted a list of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society for the year 2007-08 with him as the Manager and that was also registered. It is also his submission that the list of members of the General Body of the year 2006 should not have been considered since 10 additional members were enrolled in 2007. 27. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the list of 29 members of the General Body includes the 24 undisputed members and 5 new members out of the ten members enrolled by the petitioners and there is no discussion at all in the impugned order as to who are the 29 members and even the said list of 29 members has not been filed by the respondents. It is true that the said list of 29 members of the General Body has not been filed by the respondents and there is no discussion at all in the impugned order as to who are these 29 members of the General Body. Thus, without examination of the aforesaid facts, the District Inspector of Schools should not have concluded that the list of 29 members is the same list of members of the General Body. 28. Thus, without examination of the aforesaid facts, the District Inspector of Schools should not have concluded that the list of 29 members is the same list of members of the General Body. 28. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has, however, urged that since the earlier election held on 18th January, 2009 was held on the basis of the list of 29 members of the General Body and no objection had been raised by the petitioners regarding the membership in Writ Petition No. 10739 of 2008 that had been filed for challenging the approval granted to such election, the petitioners cannot dispute the said list in the present petition. This submission cannot be accepted because, as noticed hereinabove, this list has not been produced and even otherwise, the Court by the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2008 had set aside the said election and in Writ Petition No. 11193 of 2009 a direction was given, after hearing the counsel for the respondents, that the District Inspector of Schools shall give a thoughtful consideration to the objections raised by the petitioners to the validity of the electoral college. 29. In such circumstances, the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 25th/28th March, 2009 by which the objections filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak on 9th February, 2009 were rejected cannot be sustained and the matter has to be remitted to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties concerned. 30. The submission raised by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents about the two resolutions taken in the meeting held on 1st April, 2007 as also the submission about the loss of papers can be raised by the respondent-Brijendra Singh before the District Inspector of Schools when he proceeds to consider the objections filed by the petitioners. 31. The order dated 25th/28th March, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur as also the order dated 9th February, 2009 passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak are, accordingly, set aside. The matter is sent back to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties concerned in the light of the observations made above. The matter is sent back to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties concerned in the light of the observations made above. In view of the fact that the dispute relates to the election held in the year 2007, it is expected that the District Inspector of Schools shall make all endeavours to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by either of the parties. 32. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. ————