JUDGMENT By the Court.—Present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge while granting time to the counsel for the parties to exchange the pleadings and fixing a date for admission/hearing in the week commencing 26th April, 2010 and connecting alongwith Writ Petition No. 53516 of 2009 had stayed the operation of the order dated 20th February, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: There is an educational institution, namely, Sri Varni Inter College, Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Institution’), which is recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The payment of the salary to the teachers and other staff is being made under the provisions of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Staff) Act, 1971. The election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 30th December, 2007. One Ram Sanehi Lal Parashar claimed to have been elected as the Manager. The Regional Level Committee vide order dated 30th September, 2009 had approved the election of the Committee of Management. The decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 30th September, 2009 was challenged by the present appellant by means of Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 53316 of 2009 in which this Court had passed the following interim order on 14th October, 2009 : “Sri Rohit Upadhayay Advocate, has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 6. He prays for and is granted a month’s time to file counter-affidavit. Petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder-affidavit. List this petition in the week commencing 23rd November, 2009. Till the next date of listing parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the management of the affairs of the institution as on date.” 3. It appears that the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri had attested the signature of Ram Sanehi Lal Parashar in the capacity of the Manager of the Institution vide order dated 3rd October, 2009. The present appellant had challenged the order dated 3rd October, 2009 by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59072 of 2009. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 6th November, 2009. The present appellant had challenged the order dated 3rd October, 2009 by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59072 of 2009. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 6th November, 2009. The Court had passed the following order : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6. I do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.” 4. Against the aforesaid order, the present appellant preferred a special appeal before this Court being Special Appeal (Defective) No. 89 of 2010. The appellant withdrew the writ petition as also the special appeal and got it dismissed as withdrawn vide judgment and order dated 28th January, 2010, which is as follows: “Mr. K. Ajit, appearing on behalf of the appellant prays for withdrawal of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59072 of 2009 as also this special appeal. Respondent No. 6 is represented by Mr.Neeraj Upadhyay. Accordingly, both the appeal as also the writ application stand dismissed as withdrawn.” 5. Thereafter the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri vide order dated 30th December, 2009 clarified that Ram Sanehi Lal Parashar in the capacity of the Manager shall operate the salary account of the Institution since his signature had been attested by him on 3rd October, 2009. The present appellant filed a contempt petition being Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 141 of 2010 in which the Court had passed the following order on 13th January, 2010 : “It is alleged that the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by this Court has been violated. From a perusal of the petition, a prima facie case is made out. Issue notice to opposite parties fixing a date in the week commencing 15.2.2010. The opposite parties need not appear at this stage. The counter-affidavit may be filed within the aforesaid period or else charges may be framed after summoning the notice. However, one more opportunity is granted to the opposite parties to comply with the order within a month. The office may send a copy of this order alongwith the notice.” 6. The opposite parties need not appear at this stage. The counter-affidavit may be filed within the aforesaid period or else charges may be framed after summoning the notice. However, one more opportunity is granted to the opposite parties to comply with the order within a month. The office may send a copy of this order alongwith the notice.” 6. After notice was issued in the contempt petition, the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri developed cold feet and vide order dated 20th February, 2010 had cancelled his earlier order dated 30th December, 2009.The order dated 20th February, 2010 was challenged by the respondent No. 3 by means of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16654 of 2010 giving rise to the present appeal. 7. We have heard Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rohit Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel, who represents respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 14th October, 2009 this Court in Writ Petition No. 53576 of 2009 has passed the order of status quo with regard to managing the affairs of the Institution as on date, meaning thereby de facto situation regarding managing the affairs of the Institution was directed to be maintained by the respective parties and, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri was not at all justified in passing the order on 30th December, 2009 clarifying that as the signature of Ram Sanehi Lal Parashar has been attested on 3rd October, 2009 the account would be operated by him and when the contempt notice was issued and an opportunity was given to him to comply with the order the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri had rightly cancelled the order dated 30th December, 2009 vide order dated 20th February, 2010. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in staying the order dated 20th February, 2010 which runs contrary to the order dated 14th October, 2009 passed by this Court, in support whereof he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar and others, (2009) 2 SCC 784 . Referring to paragraph 48 of the said judgment he submitted that the Court of concurrent jurisdiction should not pass two different orders and ought to have refused to interfere by issuance of a second injunction. 9. Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand submitted that the present appellant having challenged the order dated 3rd October, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri whereby signature of Ram Sanehi Lal Parashar was attested, by means of the writ petition, which was initially dismissed on merits and in special appeal the appellant having got the special appeal and writ petition withdrawn without reserving any liberty or getting any permission to challenge the same in a fresh writ petition, is estopped from saying that the order dated 3rd October, 2009 is of no significance. He also invited the attention of the Court to the information given by the Treasury Officer, Mainpuri under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide letter dated 18th February, 2010 wherein it has been stated that the letter dated 3rd October, 2009 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri was received in the office of the Treasury, Mainpuri on 12th October, 2009 i.e. much before the order dated 14th October, 2009 had been passed by the Court. According to him, as prior to 14th October, 2009 the signature of Ram Sanehi Lal Parashar has been attested, the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri has rightly clarified the same vide order dated 30th December, 2009 and the cancellation of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri pursuant to the notice issued to him in contempt petition vide order dated 20th February, 2010 is uncalled for and the learned Single Judge has rightly stayed its operation. 10. Sri K. Ajit in rejoinder submitted that the order dated 3rd October, 2009 is ante dated as it was received in the bank much after the order of status quo was passed by this Court. 11. 10. Sri K. Ajit in rejoinder submitted that the order dated 3rd October, 2009 is ante dated as it was received in the bank much after the order of status quo was passed by this Court. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties and are of the considered opinion that the present appellant cannot challenge the validity of the order dated 3rd October, 2009 in a collateral proceeding inasmuch as for the reasons best known after the writ petition challenging the said order has been dismissed and in the special appeal preferred by the appellant the writ petition and the special appeal have also been got dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty to file a fresh writ petition. That being the position and in view of the legal position that the order dated 3rd October, 2009 attesting the signature of Ram Sanehi Lal Parashar had come into existence and, therefore, he is entitled to operate the account in the capacity of the Manager of the Institution. The District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri, it appears had developed cold feet when notice for contempt was issued and had passed the order on 20th February, 2010 cancelling his order dated 30th December, 2009 which is to safeguard his personal interest. 12. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge had rightly stayed the operation of the order dated 20th February, 2010 which does not call for interference. The special appeal fails and is dismissed. ————