Shishir Kumar, J.- Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order impugned dated 23.3.2010, by which petitioners-Committee of Management has been recognized and a direc­tion to that effect has been issued to attest the signature of petitioner No. 2, but a condition has been put that petitioners will stop running the English Medium School, which is being run in the premises of the institution and will further stop to use the field of the institution for commercial purposes. A further direc­tion has been made that the income will be utilized in the repairs of some por­tion of the building which has become dilapidated. 3. There is an institution in the name of Cutting Memorial Inter College, Varanasi, which is a recognized and aided institution governed by the provi­sions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The last election of the Committee of Management was held on 28.6.2009. The papers were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools for approving the election and attesting the signature of the petitioners-Committee of Management. It appears that some­body has made a complaint regarding misusing the property of the petitioners-institution. On that basis the matter was referred to the Regional Level Committee for deciding the dispute for the purposes of attestation of the signa­ture and recognition. According to petitioners, the complaint made before the Regional Level Committee was not relating to putting a rival claim, but one Sri K.K. Upadhyaya, claiming himself to be the President of Lok Chetna Samajik Sanstha has put a complaint before the Regional Level Committee that the field of the institution meant for sports is being used for performing the mar­riages after taking a handsome amount by the institution. Further, complaint was made that an English Medium School is being run in the premises said institution without any authority of law. The said complaint was entertained and it appears that without giving any notice to the petitioners regarding the aforesaid complaint the matter was investigated at their own level and the Regional Level Committee has taken into consideration the facts of the com­plaint as stated by Mr. Upadhyaya. 4. The said complaint was entertained and it appears that without giving any notice to the petitioners regarding the aforesaid complaint the matter was investigated at their own level and the Regional Level Committee has taken into consideration the facts of the com­plaint as stated by Mr. Upadhyaya. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that while considering the claim of the petitioners-Committee of Management regarding recognition and the attestation of the signature the Regional Level Committee has got no juris­diction and power to pass such order putting a condition after giving recognition to the election of the Committee of Management. If the premises of the institu­tion is being misused or it is not being used in the interest of the institution, then a separate provision has been provided under the Uttar Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974. According to peti­tioners, section 4 of the Act is relevant, which is being reproduced below: "4. Prevention of dissipation.-(1) Notwithstanding, anything in any other law for the time being in force, the management shall not incur any expenditure which is not in conformity with the aims and objects of the educational institution or is so excessive as to be disproportionate to the in­come thereof or is for any other reasons, such as no prudent management would deem fit to incur in the interest of the institution, and which is not sanctioned under this Act. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of provisions of sub-section (1), the Director may be general or special order prohibit the management from incurring any specified expenditure or expenditure on any specified item or any expenditure beyond a specified limit or except in accordance with spec­ified conditions and restrictions on any specified item. (3) (a) Where the management is of opinion that certain expenditure is necessary or expedient but the nature or amount of the expenditure is dis­proportionate to its income the management shall not incur it without the prior sanction in writing of the Director. (3) (a) Where the management is of opinion that certain expenditure is necessary or expedient but the nature or amount of the expenditure is dis­proportionate to its income the management shall not incur it without the prior sanction in writing of the Director. Explanation.-Any expenditure in respect of any item which is autho­rized by or under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, or any rule, regulation or bye-law or any State or Ordinance made un­der any of these enactments or under any order of the State Government or of the Director or under any decree of a Court if it is in accordance with the rules, norms or principles or within the limits prescribed by or under the aforesaid Enactment, Rule, Regulation, Bye-law, Statute, Ordinance, order or decree shall not require the sanction of the Director under this sub-sec­tion. (b) The management shall not incur any expenditure which is prohib­ited under sub-section (2). (4) (a) The Director shall, upon a representation being made to him against an order under sub-section (2) or upon an application being made to him under sub-section (3), and upon consideration of such matters and infor­mation as he may consider necessary, give his orders expeditiously. (b) On failure of the Director to pass his order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation or application and of such other documents or information as may be required by him in that behalf, his sanction to the expenditure proposed to be incurred by the management shall be deemed to have been granted. (c) The Director may allow or refuse the representation or application in whole or in part. (5) If the management be aggrieved against an order of the Director un­der sub-section (4) it may prefer an appeal to the State Government within thirty days from the date of communication of the order, and the decision of the State Government thereon shall be final." 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid Act gives a power to the Director of Education upon a representation being made to him and upon consideration of such matters after giving opportunity to the relevant parties can pass an order. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid Act gives a power to the Director of Education upon a representation being made to him and upon consideration of such matters after giving opportunity to the relevant parties can pass an order. Further, under sub-section (5) of section 4 there is a provision that in case anybody is aggrieved against an order of the Director under sub-section (4) it may prefer an appeal to the State Government within thirty days from the date of communication of the order. If somebody was ag­grieved or having a grievance like such, then he should have made an applica­tion before the Director of Education to take an appropriate decision and action as provided, but in such proceeding while considering the claim of the petition­ers regarding recognition of the election of the Committee of Management, such conditional order cannot be passed. Further, it has been informed that signature of the petitioners-Committee of Management has also been attested by order dated 23.3.2010. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel is not in a position to sup­port the conditional order passed by the Regional Level Committee and has submitted that in case the Court feels then the matter can be referred to the Director for the purposes of passing appropriate orders after affording opportu­nity. 7. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of finally at this stage without inviting counter and rejoinder-affi­davits because the order apparently appears to be illegal and without consideration in view of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974. 8. After considering the submissions of the parties and perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that under the provisions of the Act if an election of Committee of Management is held and the papers are sent to the District Inspector of Schools for granting an approval and in case there is some dispute between two rival Committee of Management, then in view of Government or­der the matter has to be referred to the Regional Level Committee, but the Regional Level Committee has got only power under the Act to see which Committee of Management can be recognized and can manage the affairs of the institution and who has been properly elected by the valid members. Nothing otherwise can be taken into consideration by the Regional Level Committee. If anything otherwise has been taken into consideration, then that can easily be said to be beyond its jurisdiction. If somebody was aggrieved regarding misusing of the property of the institution, he should have made an application under the U.P. Act No. 3 of 1975 because a separate provision has been made by the Legislature to initiate an action in cases of misuse of the properly of the recog­nized aided institutions, but while considering the claim like such regarding election of the Committee of Management, the Regional Level Committee was having only jurisdiction to consider the validity of election whether it was in total consonance of recognized Scheme of Administration by valid members under the supervision of authority and process of election has properly been held or not. The Regional Level Committee has got no other power except to see the validity of election. While considering the claim he cannot look into the fact whether the field of the Institution is being used for the purposes of sports or it is being used for other purposes, therefore, in my opinion, that part of the order passed by the Regional Level Committee is not sustainable in law and can eas­ily be treated to be without jurisdiction. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order dated 23.3.2010 is quashed to the extent putting a condition upon the petitioners-Committee of Management by the Regional Level Committee as regards running English Medium School as well as regarding misusing the field as Gokul Lawn, but as regards the recognition and attestation of the signature of the petition­ers-Committee of Management that is upheld. It is also made clear that so far as the complaint of Sri K.K. Upadhyaya is concerned that can be forwarded to the Director of Education for passing appropriate orders exercising the powers conferred under the Act after giving full opportunity to the petitioners and other relevant persons, if they think it proper. 10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 11. No order as to costs. Petition Disposed Off.