JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—Writ Petition No. 22753 of 2010 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Luxmi Narain Jagdish Sharan Kanya Inter College, Moradabad and Sanjeev Kumar claiming to be its Manager for setting aside the order dated 25th January, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad by which he has disposed of the representation filed by Satya Prakash Agarwal pursuant to the order dated 5th November, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 1238 of 1984 by approving the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 28th December, 2008 in which Satya Prakash Agarwal was elected as the Manager/Secretary. 2. Writ Petition No. 49038 of 2008 has been filed by Sanjeev Kumar for quashing the order dated 29th August, 2008 passed by the Authorised Controller/City Magistrate holding that the old Scheme of Administration approved on 4th April, 1962 and the list of members of the General Body decided by the Civil Court in Original Suit No. 106 of 1999 are the valid Scheme of Administration of the Institution and the valid list of members of the General Body on the basis of which the election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution is to be held. 3. It is stated that Luxmi Narain Jagdish Sharan Kanya Inter College, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner-Institution’) is an Intermediate Institution governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Scheme of Administration of the Institution was approved by the Deputy Director of Education on 4th April, 1962. An order dated 30th December, 1983 was issued by the Regional Joint Director of Education directing all the Colleges in the Region to get the Scheme of Administration amended. This order dated 30th December, 1983 was challenged by the Committee of Managements of 22 Colleges of Moradabad Region including the petitioner-Committee of Management in Writ Petition No. 1238 of 1984 in which an interim order was passed on 23rd January, 1984 restraining the respondents from compelling the petitioners to comply with the requirement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1981 and the Scheme of Administration according to the Third Schedule under Section 16-CC of the Amending Act and the Court also stayed the operation of the order dated 30th December, 1983. It is said that an application was subsequently moved by the petitioner-Committee of Management in Writ Petition No. 1238 of 1984 with a prayer that its name be deleted as a petitioner since it did not want to prosecute the writ petition and on 12th January, 1999, the Court allowed the application and the name of the petitioner-Committee of Management which was petitioner No. 4 in the writ petition was deleted. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that after the aforesaid order was passed by the Court, the Scheme of Administration of the petitioner-Institution was amended and it was submitted before the Deputy Director of Education who approved it by the order dated 14th May, 2001. Under the amended Scheme of Administration, the term of the Committee of Management was five years. 5. The election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 25th May, 2003 and the Regional Level Committee approved the elections held on 9th June, 2003 and the District Inspector of Schools attested the signatures of petitioner No. 2-Sanjeev Kumar on 13th June, 2003 as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution. 6. These orders were challenged by the Committee of Management of the Institution with Satya Prakash Agarwal as the Manager, in Writ Petition No. 41139 of 2003 in which initially an interim order was passed on 12th September, 2003 but the petition was ultimately disposed of by the judgment and order dated 7th December, 2007 with the following observations : “The case has been taken up in the revised list. Sri I.R. Singh, counsel for the respondents is not present. Sri R.K. Ojha, counsel for the petitioners is present. He states that there is dispute regarding the valid membership of the Committee of Management. Since the term of the Committee of Management has expired, the Authorized Controller may be directed to hold election of member of the Committee of Management after verifying as to which of the Scheme of Administrations is valid Scheme of Administration to the Institution. The question of validity of scheme of administration as well as membership shall be decided by the authorized controller within a period of 3 months from today and the election may be held in accordance with law by him within a further period of 3 months, if there is no legal impediment. The petition is disposed of accordingly. The question of validity of scheme of administration as well as membership shall be decided by the authorized controller within a period of 3 months from today and the election may be held in accordance with law by him within a further period of 3 months, if there is no legal impediment. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.” 7. It needs to be stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, an Authorised Controller was appointed in the petitioner-Institution and pursuant to the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 7th December, 2007, the Authorised Controller issued directions to the parties to submit documents so that the election for constituting the Committee of Management of the petitioner-Institution may be held. The City Magistrate, Moradabad was then appointed as the Authorised Controller and he passed an order on 29th August, 2008 that the Scheme of Administration of the petitioner-Institution approved on 4th April, 1962 is valid. He also held that the list of members of the General Body determined by the Civil Court in Original Suit No. 106 of 1999 is valid and the names of 68 members were also mentioned in the order. The elections were, therefore, directed to be held in accordance with the provisions contained in the Scheme of Administration of the Institution approved on 4th April, 1962 and the said list of members of the General Body. 8. This order dated 29th August, 2008 was challenged by Sanjeev Kumar by filing Writ Petition No. 49038 of 2008 in which following interim order was passed on 18.9.2008 : “Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Sri Kshitij Shailendra has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 6. Both may file their counter-affidavits within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List in the week commencing 3.11.2008. Meanwhile, the elections as announced may be held subject to further order of this Court.” 9. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Sanjeev Kumar filed Special Appeal No. 1294 of 2008 in which the following interim order was passed on 30th September, 2008 : “Till 16-10-2008 the election scheduled to be held on 5-10-2008 shall remain stayed.” 10. Meanwhile, the elections as announced may be held subject to further order of this Court.” 9. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Sanjeev Kumar filed Special Appeal No. 1294 of 2008 in which the following interim order was passed on 30th September, 2008 : “Till 16-10-2008 the election scheduled to be held on 5-10-2008 shall remain stayed.” 10. Subsequently, Special Appeal No. 1294 of 2008 was dismissed on 5th November, 2008 with the following observation : “In the circumstances we direct the office to list the writ petition before the appropriate Court in the week commencing 17th November, 2008. We also grant liberty to the learned counsel for the parties to request the Hon’ble Court for taking up the matter and we request the Hon’ble Single Judge to dispose of the stay application or to decide the writ petition finally on the next date fixed subject to his Lordship convenience and other business of the Court. Subject to above observations, the Special Appeal being without merit is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.” 11. It is the case of respondent No. 4-Satya Prakash Agarwal that election of the Committee of Management of the petitioner-Institution was then held on 28th December, 2008 and the papers were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools for granting approval. When orders were not passed, Satya Prakash Agarwal filed Writ Petition No. 58735 of 2009 which was disposed of with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to pass appropriate orders on the papers submitted by Satya Prakash Agarwal. 12. The petitioners submitted a detailed representation before the District Inspector of Schools against the election but the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 25th January, 2010 approving the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 28th December, 2008 with Satya Prakash Agarwal as the Manager. 13. It is this order dated 25th January, 2010 of the District Inspector of Schools that has been impugned in Writ Petition No. 22753 of 2010. 14. The main dispute in the petitions is about the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and the electoral college on the basis of which the election for constituting the Committee of Management of the petitioner-Institution is to be held. 15. 14. The main dispute in the petitions is about the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and the electoral college on the basis of which the election for constituting the Committee of Management of the petitioner-Institution is to be held. 15. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Scheme of Administration of the Institution was amended after the name of petitioner-Committee of Management was deleted in Writ Petition No. 1238 of 1984 on 12th January, 1999 and so the election has to be held on the basis of the amended Scheme of Administration. It is also his contention that the Committee of Management of the petitioner-Institution did not file any Special Appeal against the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 1238 of 1984 since its name had been deleted. It is, however, contended on behalf of the respondent that the Scheme of Administration was never amended as after the passing of the order dated 12th January, 1999, an application was filed by the Committee of Management of the Institution for recalling this order on 26th March, 1999 which application was allowed on 25th February, 2005 by a separate order. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Committee of Management of the petitioner-Institution also filed Special Appeal No. 708 of 2005 in which an interim order was passed on 25th April, 2005. 16. The Authorised Controller in the order dated 29th August, 2008 has observed that the Scheme of Administration had been approved by the Department on 4th April, 1962 and the District Inspector of Schools in his letter dated 23rd July, 2008 had informed that the Scheme of Administration said to have been amended on 29th May, 1991 and 14th May, 2001 was not available in the records and nor could it have been amended in view of the interim order passed by the High Court. He has, therefore, concluded that the election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution has to be held on the basis of the Scheme of Administration approved on 4th April, 1962. 17. He has, therefore, concluded that the election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution has to be held on the basis of the Scheme of Administration approved on 4th April, 1962. 17. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the finding recorded in the order dated 29th August, 2008 that the Scheme of Administration of the petitioner-Institution could not have been amended in view of the interim order passed in the writ petition and the Special Appeal is not correct since the name of the petitioner-Institution was deleted on 12th January, 1999 and petitioner-Institution is not an appellant in Special Appeal No. 333 of 2005 and nor has it filed any other Special Appeal. 18. It transpires from the records that 22 Institutions including the petitioner-Institution had filed Writ Petition No. 1238 of 1984 for setting aside the directions issued by the Regional Joint Director of Education on 30th December, 1983 for amending the Scheme of Administration of the Institution in which an interim order was passed on 23rd January, 1984. It is on 12th January, 1999 that the name of the petitioner-Institution was deleted but soon thereafter an application was filed on 26th March, 1999 for recall of this order and this application was allowed. After the Writ Petition was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 25th February, 2005, Special Appeal No. 333 of 2005 was filed by 18 Institutions with the remaining four Institutions (including the petitioner-Institution) as proforma respondents in which an interim order was passed on 30th March, 2005. The petitioner-Institution subsequently filed Special Appeal No. 708 of 2005 in which an interim order was passed on 25th April, 2005 which is as follows : “Following the interim order dated 30.3.2005 passed by the Division Bench in the connected special appeal No. 333 of 2005 and also taking into account the order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge on Civil Misc. (Recall) Application No. 20693 of 1999 in writ petition No. 1238 of 1984, it is directed that during pendency of this appeal the operation of the impugned order dated 30.12.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Education XIIth Region Moradabad shall remain stayed.” 19. (Recall) Application No. 20693 of 1999 in writ petition No. 1238 of 1984, it is directed that during pendency of this appeal the operation of the impugned order dated 30.12.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Education XIIth Region Moradabad shall remain stayed.” 19. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the name of the petitioner-Institution had not been restored and that it had not filed any Special Appeal against the judgment and order dated 25th February, 2005. 20. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is about the validity of the electoral college. 21. As noticed hereinabove, the said electoral college was determined by the judgment and decree dated 20th March, 1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Original Suit No. 106 of 1999. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in Writ Petition No. 49038 of 2008, it is stated that the petitioners have filed Original Suit No. 698 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad for a declaratory decree that the judgment and decree dated 20th March, 1999 in Original Suit No. 106 of 1999 be declared null and void and a further declaration has been sought that the plaintiff-Committee of Management is the valid Committee of Management and the persons held entitled by the Authorised Controller by the order dated 29th August, 2008 be restrained from causing any interference in the managerial affairs of the Committee of Management of the Institution. There are seven plaintiffs in the plaint including Sanjeev Kumar and the plaint was verified and signed on 31st October, 2008. 22. Thus, as the validity of the electoral college is in issue in the aforesaid Suit No. 698 of 2008, it will not be appropriate to examine this issue in Writ Petition No. 49038 of 2006. The validity of the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution that was held on 28th December, 2008 is also dependent upon the decision to be taken in the said Suit since the said election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on the basis of the list declared by the Authorised Controller on 29th August, 2008. The District Inspector of Schools has approved the said election by the order dated 25th January, 2010 and it is this order that has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 22753 of 2010. It is for the petitioners to pursue the Suit. The Court, therefore, declines to examine this issue in these writ petitions. Thus, for the reasons stated above, Writ Petition No. 22753 of 2010 and Writ Petition No. 49038 of 2008 are dismissed. ————