DILIP GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE Committee of Management of V. V. Inter college, Shamli, District Muzaffar Nagar and Sanjay Kumar Sangal claiming himself to be its Manager have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 28th March, 2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar by which he has directed for single operation of the salary account of the Institution under Section 5 (1) of the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 act ). ( 2 ) IT is stated that the Society "vaish College, Shamli", which is a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the act), runs two Colleges namely V. V. Inter College, Shamli (hereinafter referred to as the institution) and V. V. Post Graduate College, Shamli. ( 3 ) THE dispute in the present petition is about the Committee of Management of the Intermediate Institution. This Institution has an approved Scheme of administration. It was amended in 1983. Under Clause 7 of the amended Scheme of Administration of the Institution, the term of office bearers and members of the committee of Management is three years but the office bearers can continue for one month after the expiry of the term. However, if the new Committee of management does not take charge even within this extended period of one month, then the term of the Committee of Management shall automatically come to an end and the Deputy Director of Education shall appoint an Authorised Controller to hold the election so that charge is given to the newly elected Committee of management at the earliest. It is further provided that if more than one Committee claims to be elected, then the matter shall be referred to the Deputy Director of education whose decision shall be final. ( 4 ) DISPUTE had arisen about the Committee of Management elected in the year 1998 and on 2nd* November, 2001 since the term of the Committee of management elected earlier had come to an end, a Prabandh Sanchalak was appointed to manage the affairs of the Institution and hold the fresh elections of the Committee of Management. ( 4 ) DISPUTE had arisen about the Committee of Management elected in the year 1998 and on 2nd* November, 2001 since the term of the Committee of management elected earlier had come to an end, a Prabandh Sanchalak was appointed to manage the affairs of the Institution and hold the fresh elections of the Committee of Management. The election of the Committee of Management was held under the supervision of the Prabandha Sanchalak on 5th December, 2001, but in respect of this election Original Suit No. 208 of 2001 was filed by deepak Jain in which temporary injunction was granted restraining the Prabandha sanchalak from declaring the result of the election. This temporary injunction was vacated on 17th January, 2002 and the Prabandha Sanchalak declared the result of the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 23rd january, 2002. ( 5 ) THE matter was placed before the Regional Level Committee, which in its meeting held on 13th February, 2003, granted approval to the election of the committee of Management held on 5th December, 2001 in which petitioner No. 2 Sanjay Kumar Sangal was elected as the Manager, though with a rider that the approval was subject to the result of Writ Petition No. 50069 of 1999. This Writ petition No. 50069 of 1995 relates to the dispute regarding the members of the society. ( 6 ) PURSUANT to the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 13th february, 2003, the District Inspector of Schools attested the signatures of petitioner no. 2 Sanjay Kumar Sangal as the Manager on 17th February, 2003. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter charge of the Institution was handed over to the petitioner-Committee of Management by the Prabandha Sanchalak. It is for this reason that the petitioner-Committee of Management asserts that the term of three years shall commence from 17th February, 2003 and continue upto 17th february, 2006. ( 7 ) A meeting of the Committee of Management was, therefore, convened on 29th December, 2005 for holding fresh elections in which the election programme and the names of the election officers were finalised. The papers were also sent to the District Inspector of Schools, who by his order dated 13th January, 2006, granted permission to the petitioner-Committee of Management for holding the elections and also approved the name of the election officer. The papers were also sent to the District Inspector of Schools, who by his order dated 13th January, 2006, granted permission to the petitioner-Committee of Management for holding the elections and also approved the name of the election officer. The date of filing of the nomination papers for 12 posts was 29th January, 2006, while the date of withdrawal of nomination paper was 2nd February, 2006. For each post only one nomination paper was filed on 29th January, 2006 and after scrutiny the Election officer found them to be in order. Since there was no withdrawal of any nomination paper, the Election Officer declared the result on 2nd February, 2006 and submitted the report dated 2nd February, 2006 to the District Inspector of Schools. The manager of the newly elected Committee of Management also forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools by the communication dated 6th february, 2006. In this election Jai Prakash Sangal was elected as the President and Sanjay Kumar Sangal as the Manager. However, papers regarding another set of election held on 5th February, 2006 in which Virendra Kumar Jain claims to have been elected as the Manager were also submitted to the District Inspector of Schools. The matter was referred to the Regional Level Committee, which in its meeting held on 31st August, 2007, approved the election of the Committee of management held on 2nd February, 2006 in which Sanjay Kumar Sangal was elected as the Manager. Thereafter signatures of Sanjay Kumar Sangal were attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 10th December, 2007. The committee of Management with Virendra Kumar Jain has challenged the decision of the Regional Level Committee in Writ Petition No. 45678 of 2007. ( 8 ) THE District Inspector of Schools, however, had earlier postponed the elections by the order dated 30th January, 2006. The District Inspector of Schools also passed an order on 28th March, 2006 for single operation of the salary account of the Institution under Section 5 (1) of the 1971 Act. It is this order dated 28th March, 2006 that has been impugned in this petition. The District Inspector of Schools also passed an order on 28th March, 2006 for single operation of the salary account of the Institution under Section 5 (1) of the 1971 Act. It is this order dated 28th March, 2006 that has been impugned in this petition. ( 9 ) THE District Inspector of Schools has noticed in the impugned order that the tenure of the Committee of Management elected on 5th December, 2001, which had been approved on 17th February, 2003, will be upto 16th March, 2006 after taking into consideration the extended period of one month and though permission for holding the election of the Committee of Management was earlier granted to the petitioner-Committee of Management on 13th January, 2006, but the said permission was subsequently withdrawn on 30th January, 2006 because of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 50069 of 1999 in which an interim order was passed on 6th December, 1999. He has, therefore, observed that the new committee of Management could not have come into existence and in the absence of Committee of Management of the Institution, it was necessary to pass the order for single operation of the salary account of the Institution. ( 10 ) I have heard Sri G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3,4 and 5 while Sri Ashok khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P. N. Ojha have made submissions on behalf of respondent Nos. 6,7 and 8. ( 11 ) IT is the submission of Sri G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools deserves to be set aside as the condition stipulated under Section 5 (1) of the Act for passing the order of single operation did not exist and in any case the order is required to be set aside as no opportunity was given to the petitioners before passing the order. Elaborating his submissions, he submitted that the order for single operation of the salary account can be passed when difficulty arises in the disbursement of salaries due to any default of the management but in the present case no such difficulty has been pointed out and nor is it a case covered by the proviso to section 5 (2) of the Act. He further submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside inasmuch as the District Inspector of Schools failed to notice that the Committee of Management had in fact been elected on 2nd February, 2006 before the expiry of the term of the earlier Committee of Management and any delay in the declaration of the result by the Prabandha Sanchalak cannot be made a ground to pass the impugned order. He further submitted that the District inspector of Schools committed an illegality in holding that since he had passed the order dated 30th January, 2006 postponing the elections of the Committee of management, there can be no Committee of Management in existence because not only was there no justification to pass the order dated 30th January, 2006, but even otherwise, the election was held as the process of election had earlier started and the nomination papers had been filed on 29th January, 2006. ( 12 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents, however, defended the impugned order and in this connection merely reiterated the grounds mentioned in the impugned order. ( 13 ) SRI Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 submitted that the finding recorded by the District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order that there was no Committee of Management in existence is correct because the term of the Committee of Management elected on 5th december, 2001 will actually start to run from 23rd January, 2002 when the prabandha Sanchalak declared the result of the elections and not from 17th february, 2003 when the District Inspector of Schools attested the signatures of the Manager of the Committee of Management. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Committee of Management, sukhpura Inter College, Ballia and another v. Alleged Committee of Management, sukhpura Inter College, Ballia and others, 1997 AWC (Supp.) 592 and Ratan kumar Solanki v. State of U. P. and others, 2010 (1) ADJ 262 . ( 14 ) I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 15 ) IT needs to be noticed that on 6th April, 2006, the Court, while granting time to the respondents to file the counter affidavit, stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 28th March, 2006. ( 14 ) I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 15 ) IT needs to be noticed that on 6th April, 2006, the Court, while granting time to the respondents to file the counter affidavit, stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 28th March, 2006. Subsequently, the Regional Level committee approved the election held on 2nd February, 2006, by the decision taken on 31st August, 2007 and the District Inspector of Schools also attested the signatures of Sanjay Kumar Sangal as the Manager by the order dated 10th december, 2007. The impugned order, therefore, has lost also significance and the dispute in the present petition is not required to be decided at all. However, Sri ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents insisted that the dispute may be decided as it may have some bearing on the future elections. It is for this reason that the Court has proceeded to examine the matter on merits. However, Sri ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents insisted that the dispute may be decided as it may have some bearing on the future elections. It is for this reason that the Court has proceeded to examine the matter on merits. ( 16 ) SECTION 5 of the Act deals with the procedure for payment of salary in the case of certain institutions and sub-sections (1) and (2) which are relevant for the purpose of controversy involved in the present petition are as follows: "procedure for payment of salary in the case of certain institutions-{1)The management of every institution shall for the purposes of disbursement of salaries to its teachers and employees open in a scheduled bank or a cooperative bank a separate account to be operated jointly by a representative of the management and by the Inspector or such other officer as may be authorised by the Inspector in that behalf: provided that after the account is opened the Inspector may, if he is, subject to any rules made under this Act, satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, instruct the bank that the account shall be operated by the representative of the management alone, and may at any time revoke such instruction: provided further that in the case referred to in the proviso to sub-section (2), or where a difficulty arises in the disbursement of salaries due to any default of the management, the Inspector may instruct the Bank that the account shall be operated only by himself or by such other officer as may be authorised by him in that behalf and may at any time revoke such instruction. (2) The management shall deposit in the said account by such date as may be specified by general or special orders by the Inspector, eighty per cent, or where the State Government or an officer authorised by the State having regard to the money required to be disbursed, directs a higher percentage, then such higher percentage as it or he may direct, of the amount received from students as fees which in accordance with the general or special orders of the State Government in that behalf [and for so long as such orders are not made, in accordance with the directions of the Inspector] form part of the maintenance fund: provided that where the said percentage of fees is not deposited as aforesaid the Inspector may by order prohibit the management from making any realisation of fees from the students, and thereupon the Inspector may recover the fees (either through the teachers of the institution or in such other manner as he thinks fit) directly from the students and shall deposit the fees so recovered in the said account. " ( 17 ) THE Courts have repeatedly held that before passing an order of single operation of account, the District Inspector of Schools must give opportunity to the Committee of Management. ( 18 ) IN the counter affidavit, it is not stated that any opportunity was granted to the petitioner-Committee of Management before passing the impugned order. In fact, only an attempt has been made to defend the order on the reasons mentioned in the impugned order. Thus, there is nothing on the record to indicate that any opportunity was given to the Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution before passing the order of single operation. It was incumbent upon the district Inspector of Schools to have afforded opportunity to the Manager under whose signatures the payment of salary was earlier made but that was not done. It is, therefore, difficult to sustain the impugned order. ( 19 ) EVEN otherwise, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It does not mention that the District Inspector of Schools was satisfied that it was expedient in the public interest to pass the order for single operation of the salary account of the Institution and nor does it mention that any difficulty had arisen in the disbursement of salaries due to any default of the management. It does not mention that the District Inspector of Schools was satisfied that it was expedient in the public interest to pass the order for single operation of the salary account of the Institution and nor does it mention that any difficulty had arisen in the disbursement of salaries due to any default of the management. It also does not mention that the said order was passed under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act. The only reason mentioned for passing the order of single operation is that there is no Committee of Management in existence. ( 20 ) THE contention of Sri Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, however, is that the District Inspector of Schools committed no illegality in holding that there was no Committee of Management in existence. It is his contention that the term of the Committee of Management elected on 5th december, 2001 should start from 23rd January, 2002 on which date the Prabandha sanchalak declared the election result. It is for this reason that he contends that the Committee of Management elected on 2nd February, 2006 cannot be approved because the election was held after the expiry of three years and one month from 23rd January, 2002 and only the Prabandha Sanchalak, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution, could have held the elections. In support of this contention he has relied upon the decision of this Court in Ram ratan Solanki (supra) in which the Court observed : "38. In Committee of Management, Lakhori Inter College, Moradabad and another v. District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad and others, (2002) 1 uplbec 199 (by Honble S. K. Singh, J.), clarifying position regarding the term "taking over charge", after referring to Committee of Management, Jangali baba Intermediate College (supra) and another Division Bench decision in committee of Managements. Dy. Director of Education and others, (1995) 1 uplbec149; Committee of Management Brij. Hoshiar Singh Memorial Inter college, Shamli (supra), His Lordship observed as under. Dy. Director of Education and others, (1995) 1 uplbec149; Committee of Management Brij. Hoshiar Singh Memorial Inter college, Shamli (supra), His Lordship observed as under. "in both the cases aforementioned, it was held that commencement of the term of the committee of management was not dependent on attestation of signature by the DIOS but at the same time, the Court did recognise that the term of the committee in a given case may begin to run from the date the elected committee of management takes over charge of the management. It would depend upon the facts of each case that whether term of committee of management will begin from the date of election or from the date of taking over charge. In a case where the affairs of the college are manage by the committee which holds the elections in accordance with the scheme of administration, before expiry of its term, the newly elected committee of management will begin to run not from the date of election but from the date of taking over charge of the management after expiry of the term of the outgoing committee" 39. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the above observations. 40. The above discussion makes it clear that the term of Committee of management would commence when the Committee of Management starts functioning as a result of the election. If a Committee of Management which is already existing and the same Officer Bearers have come to be elected in the new election, if the election has been held after expiry of the term of the earlier Committee of Management, the newly elected Committee of management can start function from the date its result is declared but where office Bearers are different, for newly elected Committee of Management the same can be said to have taken over charge after the term of the earlier committee is over and newly elected Committee is allowed to function. However where the newly elected Committee of Management is not able to function not on account of any lapse on its part, but for the reasons beyond its control, namely, some order issued by the educational authorities restraining it from functioning or an order by the Court or similar other circumstances, the term of the Committee of Management would commence after it takes over charge and starts function. We make it clear that there may be a case where despite of a new election having taken place, the term of the earlier committee of Management is over, and, in the absence of any prohibitive order by any competent authority, Committee of Management newly elected does not take any step on its own to take over charge of the management of the College, in that case we are clearly of the view that the lapse on the part of the newly elected Committee of Management would not give it any advantage to differ or postpone the commencement of the period inasmuch it cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong but where despite of efforts etc. , the rival Committee or the Authorised Controller, as the case may be, has not permitted the newly elected Committee of Management to function, in that case the dictum as laid down above that the term would commence from the date of taking over the charge would apply. " ( 21 ) SRI G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the term of the Committee of Management will actually start to run from 17th february, 2003 when the District Inspector of Schools attested the signatures of the Manager of the Committee of Management pursuant to the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 13th February, 2003 and will, therefore, continue upto 16th March, 2006 if the extended period of one month is also taken into consideration. It is his submission that in view of the provisions of Clause 5 (6) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution, the newly elected Committee of management can take charge only after the District Inspector of Schools grants recognition to the Committee of Management and since in the present case the prabandha Sanchalak was continuing in the Institution, the Committee of management was given charge only after 17th February, 2003 when the District inspector of Schools attested the signatures of the Manager. ( 22 ) THE Court in the above mentioned decision in Ram Ratan Solanki (supra)made it clear that the term of the Committee of Management will commence when the Committee of Management starts functioning as a result of the election. ( 22 ) THE Court in the above mentioned decision in Ram Ratan Solanki (supra)made it clear that the term of the Committee of Management will commence when the Committee of Management starts functioning as a result of the election. The Court pointed out that in a case where same office bearers are elected in the new election, the newly elected Committee of Management can function from the date its result is declared, but where the office bearers are different, the newly elected Committee of Management takes over charge after the term of the earlier committee of Management is over and the newly elected Committee of management is allowed to function. ( 23 ) IN the present case, the Authorised Controller was functioning in the institution prior to the holding of the elections on 5th December, 2001. Under clause 5 (6) of the Scheme of Administration, the Committee of Management can be given charge only after the District Inspector of Schools grants recognition to the Committee of Management. It is not in dispute that the District Inspector of schools attested the signatures of petitioner No. 2 Sanjay Kumar Sangal as manager of the Committee of Management on 17th February, 2003. Thus, it was not possible for the petitioner-Committee of Management to take over charge on 23rd January, 2002 and nor is it the case of the respondents that the Committee of Management took charge on this date. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition, the petitioners have specifically stated that it is after the passing of the order dated 17th February, 2003 by the District Inspector of Schools that the charge of the institution was handed over to the petitioner-Committee of Management by the prabandha Sanchalak. All that has been stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents is that there is no need to give any reply to this paragraph. In fact, the District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order has also mentioned that the term of the Committee of Management would begin from 17th February, 2003. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention advanced by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. ( 24 ) SRI Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents also relied upon the decision of this Court in Committee of Management, Sukhpura Inter college (supra) in which it was observed : ". . It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention advanced by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. ( 24 ) SRI Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents also relied upon the decision of this Court in Committee of Management, Sukhpura Inter college (supra) in which it was observed : ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The position has to be taken as well-settled that it is not open to the Committee of Management of an Institution or its office bearers to hold an election after the term of the Committee of Management has come to an end. Any order of the D. I. O. S. attesting the signature of the Manager of such invalid Committee of Management cannot cure the invalidity in the constitution of the Committee. " ( 25 ) IN the present case, as noticed hereinabove, the election of the Committee of Management was held on 2nd February, 2006 prior to the expiry of the term of the earlier Committee of Management on 16th March, 2006. This decision, therefore, does not help the respondents. ( 26 ) THUS, for all the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 28th march, 2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar is set aside. In normal circumstances, the District Inspector of Schools could have been asked to pass a fresh order. However, the records now show that the committee of Management elected on 2nd February, 2006 in which Sanjay Kumar sangal was elected as the Manager was subsequently recognised by the Regional level Committee by the order dated 31st August, 2007 and, thereafter, the signatures of the Manager were also attested on 10th December, 2007. It is, therefore, not necessary to pass any order for reconsideration of the matter by the District Inspector of Schools. ( 27 ) THE writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. .