JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.- Learned Standing Counsel represents respondent nos. 1 to 4. Notice on behalf of respondent no.5 has been accepted by Sri Durga Singh. All the respondents may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within a week thereafter. 2. Heard Sri P.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Durga Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. The controversy with regard to the usurpation of the properties of the Social Welfare Department by respondent No.5 as well as the government money which was released for constructions of the hostel by the District Social Welfare Department, Mathura was subject matter of consideration before the Director, Social Welfare,, U.P. Lucknow. Under the order of the Director, Social Welfare, U.P. Lucknow, the District Magistrate, Mathura got a committee of 4 members constituted for a thorough enquiry. The 4 Members' Committee submitted its detail report stating therein that respondent no.5 has illegally set up himself as the Manager of the properties of the District Social Welfare Department including the hostel known as Brij Chhtravas, Durgapur, Krishna Nagar, Mathura, which was constructed on government land with government money. It was further recorded that the District Social Welfare Officer was colluding with respondent No.5. Pursuant to the enquiry report, recovery proceedings were initiated against respondent no.5 for a sum of Rs.12,28,269/-. 4. Recovery proceedings so initiated were challenged by respondent no.5 by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38490 of 2006, which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 18th October, 2006 after the counter affidavit was filed by the department in the said writ petition. As a logical consequence, the issue of recovery being affected against respondent no.5 stood closed. 5. Further vide order dated 25th April, 2007, respondent no.5 was restrained from functioning as Manager and payment of salary to teaching and non-teaching staffs of the institution was to be made through the District Social Welfare Officer. This order was challenged by respondent no.5 by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8006 of 2008 claiming himself to be the Manager. Counter affidavit was filed by the teachers concerned and the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 4th September, 2008. 6. This order was challenged by respondent no.5 by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8006 of 2008 claiming himself to be the Manager. Counter affidavit was filed by the teachers concerned and the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 4th September, 2008. 6. A First Information Report was lodged against respondent no.5 being Case Crime No. 274 of 2007 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and a charge-sheet has also been filed in the said case against respondent no.5. The charge-sheet has been challenged by way of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before this Court, further proceedings in that regard have been stayed. 7. It is at this stage that the Director, Social Welfare, U.P. Lucknow, passed an order dated 30th January, 2009, whereby the recovery proceedings initiated against respondent No.5 were stayed. The order dated 30th January, 2009 was challenged by the present petitioners before this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8704 of 2009. The Writ Court, vide order dated 25th February, 2009, has been pleased to stay the order of the Director dated 30th January, 2009. 8. The Principal Secretary vide order dated 24th march, 2009 set aside the order of the Director dated 30th January, 2009 and directed that recovery be made from respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 filed writ petition No. 17822 of 2009 against this order. Writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 2nd April, 2009 permitting the petitioner to represent his grievance before the Secretary. 9. The Special Secretary passed an order dated 12th May, 2009 for recovery being affected against respondent No.5 and for his not being permitted to function as Manager. 10. The matter was considered by the Secretary, Social Welfare, U.P. Government Lucknow on the representation made by respondent No.5 and under the impugned order even after recording that Brij Chhatravas has been constructed on the government land with government money (reference para-6 of the order impugned), he has held that since the Director had taken a decision on 30th January, 2009, wherein it was directed that respondent No.5 will function as Manager of the Brij Chhatravas, no further orders are to be passed. He has referred to two other enquiry reports dated 28th June, 2005 and that conducted by 3 members Committee appointed by the Director himself. He has referred to two other enquiry reports dated 28th June, 2005 and that conducted by 3 members Committee appointed by the Director himself. Both the aforesaid reports are more or less qua the appointments made in the institution, which was receiving aid from the Social Welfare Department and had not dealt with the status of Brij Chhatravas. 11. What is further surprising to note is that although the writ petition filed by respondent No.5 against the recovery proceedings being writ petition No. 38490 of 2006 has been dismissed by this Court and despite the order of the Director staying the recovery proceedings against respondent No.5 dated 30th January, 2009, having been stayed by this Court in pending writ petition No. 17822 of 2009, the Secretary records that it is still to be ascertained as to what is the intention of the interim order of the High Court. He has directed that a 4th enquiry be held in the matter by Special Secretary for fixing the extent of liability of the respondent No.5. The recovery proceedings against respondent No.5 be not affected. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. 12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the Secretary, Social Welfare has not acted fairly in the matter. He has deliberately camouflage the impugned order in a manner to suggest that the intent of the orders of the High Court qua recovery proceedings against respondent No.5 are not clear. The impugned order in fact restores the order of the Director dated 30th January, 2010, whereby the respondent No.5 was permitted to act as the Manager of Brij Chhatravas, which, as already noticed above, has been constructed on government land from government money and which order has already been stayed by this Court in pending writ petition No. 17822 of 2009. 13. In these set of circumstances, following interim directions are being issued by this Court: 14. The District Magistrate, Mathura shall immediately take over the possession and control of Brij Chhatravas. All relevant records pertaining to recovery proceedings initiated against respondent No.5 shall be placed before the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. The District Magistrate, Mathura shall immediately take over the possession and control of Brij Chhatravas. All relevant records pertaining to recovery proceedings initiated against respondent No.5 shall be placed before the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. The Chief Secretary shall examine as to whether there has been miss-utilisation/embezzlement of the government money and property at the hands of respondent No.5, in collusion with the then District Social Welfare Officer, Mathura or not. He will further examine the conduct of the Secretary, Social Welfare, who has passed the impugned order. An affidavit shall be filed by the Chief Secretary before this Court on 21st September, 2010 recording his conclusion in the matter. The Chief Secretary may afford opportunity of hearing to respondent No.5, the Director of Social Welfare and the Secretary, who has passed the impugned order. 15. Let the matter be placed before appropriate Bench on 21st September, 2010 for further orders. Ordered Accordingly