Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A. Tiwari, learned counsel for O.P. No. 4, learned Standing on behalf of O.P. Nos. 1 to 3, and Sri M.B. Singh, learned counsel on behalf O.P. No. 5. 1. Dr. L.P. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner for the purpose of interim relief submits that in the District of Pratapgarh there is an Institution known as “Sewashram Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Dindhui, Pratapgarh” (hereinafter referred to as the institution) 2. In the year 2000 some disputes had arisen in respect to Election of the Committee of Management, as such a Writ Petition No. 2136 (MS) of 2000 was filed before this Court by an order dated 05.09.2000 the State Government was directed to appoint Authorized Controller. Further, the said writ petition finally disposed of by order dated 15.12.2005, the operative portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:- “It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance of order dated 5.9.2000 election could not be held as the list of members were not available. In spite of several requests, the Committee of Management has failed to furnish the list of members to the authorized controller. During pendency of the writ petition, the Registrar Societies Funds and Chits has confirmed the list of members of the Committee of Management and being aggrieved thereof a writ petition has been field at Allahabad which was registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15606 of 1992 in which this Court had directed that in view of the settled position the list of the members has already been approved by the Deputy Director of Education, Allahabad. Accordingly, the authorzied controller is directed to hold an election as directed by means of order dated 5.9.2000. On the basis of the list of the members of the Committee of Management dated 7.4.1985, subject to confirmation about the alive members.” 3. Dr. L.P. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner further submits that in pursuance to the judgment passed by this Court dated 15.12.2005 the election took place on 28.05.2006 thereafter the next election was due in the year 2009. So, the Committee of Management on 15.04.2009 made a request to the DIOS, Pratapgarh/O.P. NO. Dr. L.P. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner further submits that in pursuance to the judgment passed by this Court dated 15.12.2005 the election took place on 28.05.2006 thereafter the next election was due in the year 2009. So, the Committee of Management on 15.04.2009 made a request to the DIOS, Pratapgarh/O.P. NO. 3 to sent an Observer for holding an election, same was appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh, date for election fixed as 15.04.2009 but due to the prevailing situation at that relevant point of time, DIOS, Pratapgarh issued an order dated 13.04.2009 (Annexure-16), to postpone that election. 4. Accordingly, the election was postponed later on held on 10.05.2009 amongst the members of the who were approved as per the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2136 (MS) of 2000. 5. He further submits that another set of persons held an election on 15.04.2009, as such a dispute has been arisen in respect to the Committee of Management of the institution, so a Writ Petition No. 2900 (MS) of 2009 Committee of Management, Sewashram Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Dindhui, Pratapgarh and Another Vs. State of U.P., filed by the contesting respondent No. 4 disposed of with the following direction:- “So far as the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners that there were two rival claimants, as elected Committees of Management, before the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, he was under obligation to refer the dispute to the Regional Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A(7) of the Act, is concerned, I am of the view that the election conducted by the opposite parties under the supervision of the Observer appears to be valid,” 6. Accordingly, the matter came up before the O.P. No. 2 (Regional Level Committee) and the impugned order contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition that Election held on 10.05.2009 are ellegal and invalid and order dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure No. 2) passed by DIOS to hold a fresh election on 30.09.2010. 7. Dr. L.P. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by O.P. No. 2 is per se illegal, contrary to the facts of the case as well as contrary to the judgment dated 17.12.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 2900 (MS) of 2009. 7. Dr. L.P. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by O.P. No. 2 is per se illegal, contrary to the facts of the case as well as contrary to the judgment dated 17.12.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 2900 (MS) of 2009. He further submits that the election of 21 members which were inducted on 30.11.2008 was invalid action contrary to the by-laws which governs the filed and to the order dated 13.04.2009 passed by DIOS, hence the impugned orders are arbitrary in nature cannot sustain. 8. In rebuttal, Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that as per the procedure provided under bye laws 21 new members were inducted and approved on 30.11.2008, in this regard, O.P. No. 2 has given a finding to the effect that they are being validly elected, thereafter the election of the Committee of Management held on 15.04.2009 amongst the said members. However when the election had taken place on 15.04.2009 it was not within the knowledge of the person who were conducting the same that the order dated 13.04.2009 has been passed by DIOS which is clear from the impugned order passed by the O.P. No. 2, the O.P. No. 2 in order to decide the dispute involved in the present case in pursuance to the order dated 17.12.2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2900 (MS) of 2009framed the following points :- (A) Election have been held in a meeting convened by person authorized to do so. (B) Election have held form amongst valid members of the general body entitled to participate in the elections. I Election have been held in accordance with the provisions of approved scheme of administration. 9. Thereafter on the basis of material on record held by the impugned order (Annexure-1) that the election took place on 10.05.2009 was invalid and illegal, accordingly the signature of the Manager of the Committee of Management elected on 15.05.2009 approved/attested by the DIOS on 14.05.2009 canceled it is directed to hold fresh election on 30.09.2010. As that the impugned order has been passed on the asking of the petitioner himself as such they cannot regal out from the order in question, and if they disputed the same they have got an appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum, so the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 10. As that the impugned order has been passed on the asking of the petitioner himself as such they cannot regal out from the order in question, and if they disputed the same they have got an appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum, so the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 10. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 11. So far as the facts in regard to passing of the judgment by this Court on 15.12.2005 in Writ Petition No. 2136 (MS) of 2000 are not disputed between the parties, further it is also not disputed between the parties that the last undisputed election of the Committee of Management held on 28.05.2006, but thereafter the dispute had arisen between the parties in respect to the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution. 12. As per the version of the petitioner initially, the election of the Committee of Management was fixed for 15.04.2009 but the same was postponed in view of the order dated 13.04.2009 issued by District Inspector of School. Subsequently, held on 10.05.2009 in presence of the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh. Accordingly, Manager of the Committee of Management who was elected in the said election, the signatures were attested by the District Inspector of Schools vide order 14.05.2009 and he is functioning in the said capacity till the date of passing of the impugned order, in this regard while passing the judgment and award dated 17.05.2009 in Writ Petition No. 2900 (MS) of 2009 filed by the respondent No. 4, held :- “I am of the view that the election conducted by the opposite parties under the supervision of the Observer appears to be valid,” 13. In view of the abovesaid facts, the election held on 10th of May, 2009 in Government Inter College, Pratapgarh in presence of the Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh in which petitioner No. 2 Dr. In view of the abovesaid facts, the election held on 10th of May, 2009 in Government Inter College, Pratapgarh in presence of the Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh in which petitioner No. 2 Dr. Uma Kant Tripathi was elected as Manager whose signatures were attested by O.P. No. 4 on 14th of May, 2009 is working since then till the date of passing of the impugned orders under challenge in the present writ petition, and also taking into account that the new 21 members who were inducted in the society, their induction is to be scrutinized in the present case, also whether the election held amongst the said members on 15.04.2009 by the O.P. No. 4 without Observer sent by District Inspector of Schools was in contravention to the order dated 13.04.2009 passed by the said authority are the points to be considered on merits. So, keeping in view the said facts as an interim measure, the operation and implementation of the impugned orders dated 30.08.2010/04.09.2010 (Annexure-1) passed by Regional Level Committee (O.P. No. 2) and the orders dated 09.09.2010 (Annexure Nos. 2 and 3) passed by District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh/ O.P. No. 3 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. 14. Learned counsel for the opposite parties prays for and is granted two weeks time to file counter counter affidavit. One week thereafter is granted to the petitioner for rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter.