JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This petition has been preferred by the Committee of Management through Rajendra Singh as Manager of Inter College Sarsena, Sachuee, District Mau, assailing an order dated 18.10.2010 whereby the District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to revoke the proposal of suspension of Respondent No. 5-Shiv Sahai Singh claiming himself to be the Head of the Institution. The District Inspector of Schools has simultaneously imposed an order of single operation of accounts under Section 3 (3) of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 Act. 2. The petition has been heard with the assistance of Sri Siddharth Verma for the respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who have stated at the Bar that they do not propose to file a counter-affidavit in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed. 3. Sri Khare, at the very out set on instructions received, contends that the present writ petition is confined to a challenge to the order imposing the single operation of accounts under Section 3 (3) of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 Act. The petitioner proposes to challenge the other part relating to the matter of suspension before the appropriate Bench. Accordingly, this writ petition is confined only to the extent of the order being impugned in relation to the single operation of accounts. 4. Sri Khare submits that the signatures of the petitioner were attested and countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools in 2008. The respondents dispute this position and contend that no such signatures have been attested pursuant to any election held in the year 2008. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the submission advanced, it is evident that earlier also the District Inspector of Schools invoked the powers under Section 5 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 2971 Act on 9.3.2010 to impose single operation of accounts. The same was assailed in Writ Petition No. 14201 of 2010 and it was allowed on the ground that the order had been passed without giving any notice or opportunity. Subsequently, the District Inspector of Schools again repeated his performance by passing an order on 12.7.2010 and the underlying theme of both the orders were that the petitioner is not the validly elected and recognized Committee of Management. Subsequently, the District Inspector of Schools again repeated his performance by passing an order on 12.7.2010 and the underlying theme of both the orders were that the petitioner is not the validly elected and recognized Committee of Management. On the second occasion also, this Court passed an interim order on 21.7.2010 in Writ Petition No. 42061 of 2010 which is still in operation. 6. This is the third occasion when the District Inspector of Schools has resorted to Section 3 (3) of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 in order to impose single operation of accounts. Sri Khare submits that the aforesaid action of the District Inspector of Schools clearly amounts to malice in law inasmuch as once the earlier order founded on the same cause under Section 5 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 Act had been stayed by this Court then there was no occasion for the District Inspector of Schools to have resorted to a similar action in order to impose Section 3 (3) of the 1971 Act. 7. The aforesaid argument appears to be correct. Learned counsel for the respondents has been unable to indicate any justification for passing of the said order in the manner in which it has been done by the District Inspector of Schools. The scope and powers to be exercised by the authorities is to be strictly within the four corners of default of the management in relation to payment of salary only. For reference, see Committee of Management, Sahid Sansmaran Inter College, Sherpur and another v. Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi and another, 1993 ALJ 318. 8. So far as the reason for passing of the order of single operation accounts is concerned, the same appears to be under the impression that there are no valid elections and the petitioner-Committee is not entitled to function. The aforesaid exercise by the District Inspector of Schools has been done in a manner as if the District Inspector of Schools was authorized to decide the question of validity of elections as claimed by the petitioner or otherwise. The continuance of a Committee of Management either under a valid election or even otherwise vis-a-vis its effective control can be gone into only under the provisions of Section 16 (A) (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 after recording findings with regard to effective control. The continuance of a Committee of Management either under a valid election or even otherwise vis-a-vis its effective control can be gone into only under the provisions of Section 16 (A) (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 after recording findings with regard to effective control. This power is to be exercised by the Joint Director of Education and now under the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 such disputes have to be processed through the Regional Level Committee. To that extent, the District Inspector of Schools appears to have exceeded in his jurisdiction and the learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, concede on this count that the matter ought to have been referred to the Regional Level Committee in stead of the District Inspector of Schools himself taking a decision. 9. I have perused the order of the District Inspector of Schools, who has proceeded to assess the validity of the elections. The finding is that no permission was taken from the District Inspector of Schools for holding of the alleged elections as claimed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, clear that the District Inspector of Schools while proceeding to pass an order has entered into the question of validity of the election set up by the petitioner. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 18.10.2010 insofar as it relates to the single operation of accounts under Section 3 (3) of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1972 Act is concerned, is unsustainable. It is hereby quashed leaving it open to the District Inspector of Schools to refer the matter to the Regional Level Committee for decision afresh in the light of the observations made herein above. 10. In case such a request is made by the District Inspector of Schools, the Regional Level Committee shall proceed to resolve the dispute as expeditiously as possible but not later than 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. —————