JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management of Manash Inter College Fatehpur, district Deoria and Sriram Shahi claiming himself to be the Manager, have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 29th July, 2009 passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh by which recognition has been granted to the Committee of Management of the Institution elected on 21st December, 2008 with respondent No. 5-Ram Bhawan Gupta as the Manager. A further relief that has been sought is for granting recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution elected on 21st December, 2008 with petitioner No. 2-Sriram Shahi as the Manager. 2. Manash Vidyalaya Society Fatehpur is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said Society runs an Intermediate College known as Manash Inter College Fatehpur in district Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institution’) which is recognised under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921. The Institution has an approved Scheme of Administration which, amongst others, provides that the term of the Committee of Management of the Institution shall be three years. 3. It is stated by the petitioners that the election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 22nd May, 2005 under the supervision of the Authorised Controller on the basis of a list of 187 members of the General Body in which Chandra Pal Singh was elected as the Manager and Virendra Singh was elected as the President. The Regional Level Committee granted recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution elected on 22nd May, 2005 by the order dated 1st September, 2005. On the expiry of the term of three years the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 9th June, 2008 resolved that the election for constituting the Committee of Management shall be held on 22nd June, 2008 and a request was also made to the District Inspector of Schools to send an Observer as was required under Clause 6(3) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. The Observer was not sent but the Committee of Management resolved that the election will be held on 29th June, 2008 and a request was again made to the District Inspector of Schools to send an Observer. The Observer was not sent but the Committee of Management resolved that the election will be held on 29th June, 2008 and a request was again made to the District Inspector of Schools to send an Observer. Since the election of the Committee of Management was held on 29th June, 2008 without the presence of the Observer, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 2nd August, 2008 that the Committee of Management of the Institution should hold the election as per the Scheme of Administration of the Institution with the Associate District Inspector of Schools as the Observer after inviting objections to the list of members published in a widely circulated newspaper and thereafter finalise the electoral college with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. However, the outgoing Manager of the Committee of Management without publishing the list of the members of the General Body made a request to the District Inspector of Schools for appointment of an Observer and the District Inspector of Schools appointed Ram Bhajan, Vice Principal of the Government Inter College as the Observer for holding the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 23rd November, 2008 but due to non-availability of the Observer, the election could not be held on 23rd November, 2008. 4. It is further stated by the petitioner that in the meantime, Chandra Pal Singh, the outgoing Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution, filed Writ Petition No. 60107 of 2008 for a direction upon the respondents to transmit the papers regarding the election held on 29th June, 2008 or in the alternative direct the respondents to appoint an Observer for holding the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the District Inspector of Schools sent a communication dated 8th December, 2008 to the Manager appointing Sri J.N. Jha, Finance and Accounts Officer as the Observer for holding the election on 21st December, 2008. 5. It is also asserted by the petitioners that without giving any separate information to the members of the General Body, the outgoing Manager published a news item in Rashtriya Sahara on 7th December, 2008 that the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution will be held on 21st December, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. in the campus of the Institution. However, as the earlier elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were held since 1987 in the Campus of the Government Inter College, Deoria, the Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools made an endorsement that the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution will be held in the campus of the Government Inter College. The petitioners and other members also submitted an application to the District Inspector of Schools on 10th December, 2008 for holding the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution in the Campus of the Government Inter College and the District Inspector of Schools by his communication dated 10th December, 2008 addressed to the Manager directed that the elections shall be held on 21st December, 2008 in the Campus of the Government Inter College, Deoria. A news item was, accordingly, published by the Manager that the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution will be held in the campus of the Government Inter College instead of the Institution. 6. In the meantime, Writ Petition No. 60107 of 2008 came up for disposal on 12th December, 2008 and as both the parties stated that the elections were fixed for 21st December, 2008 and an Observer had also been appointed, the Court disposed of the petition with no further orders. 7. The petitioners assert that in view of the news item published on 11th December, 2008 that the election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution will be held on 21st December, 2008 in the campus of the Government Inter College instead of the Institution under the supervision of the Observer J.N. Jha appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, the election was actually held in the campus of the Government Inter College on 21st December, 2008 in which petitioner No. 2-Sriram Shahi was elected as the Manager and Virendra Singh was elected appointed as the President. The Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools also submitted the list of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution to the District Inspector of Schools for granting recognition. The District Inspector of Schools also granted recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution with Sriram Shahi as the Manager by the order dated 21st January, 2009. 8. The District Inspector of Schools also granted recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution with Sriram Shahi as the Manager by the order dated 21st January, 2009. 8. The respondent-Committee of Management, however, claims that in view of the order dated 19th December, 2008 passed by the Joint Director of Education for holding the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution in the campus of the Institution, the election was held on 21st December, 2008 in the campus of the Institution from amongst the 260 members of the General Body in which 139 members participated and Ram Bhawan Gupta was elected as the Manager. 9. The aforesaid order dated 21st January, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools was assailed by the respondent-Committee of Management of the Institution in Writ Petition No. 21653 of 2009. The Writ Petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 8th May, 2009 and the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 21st January, 2009 was set aside. A direction was also issued to the Regional Joint Director of Education to decide the dispute regarding the grant of approval to the election held on 21st December, 2008 and the relevant observations of the Court are as follows : “Without going into the controversy as to whether the elections were held at the proper place and whether they were held in accordance with the guidelines and instructions issued by the Joint Director of Education from time to time, the order dated 21.1.2009 is liable to be quashed solely on the ground that by order dated 17.1.2009, the Joint Director of Education, respondent No. 2 had called for a report from the District Inspector of Schools and had directed that till any decision was taken by him (respondent No. 2) no decision with regard to the elections of the Committee of Management be taken by the District Inspector of Schools. Learned Standing Counsel has produced the record of the case and has submitted that such letter of the respondent No. 2, Joint Director of Education had been received by the District Inspector of Schools on 17.1.2009 itself. In such view of the matter, since the Joint Director of Education had issued such directions and despite that the impugned order has been filed, in my view, the same deserves to be quashed. In such view of the matter, since the Joint Director of Education had issued such directions and despite that the impugned order has been filed, in my view, the same deserves to be quashed. This Court is not going into the detailed facts of this case lest the same may influence the authority who shall be finally hearing and deciding the matter. As per the Government Order dated 20.10.2008, approval to the election of the Committee of Management is to be accorded by the District Inspector of Schools, and if so required, the same may be referred to the Joint Director of Education. Since in the present case, there is a dispute, in my view, the matter should be decided by the Joint Director of Education. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 has, however, stated that his client does not have faith in the respondent No. 2, the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and he thus prays that the complaint of the petitioner, as well as the entire matter with regard to the elections, may be decided by some other Joint Director of Education/Regional Level Committee. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not object to such request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sandeep Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel has, however, suggested that the matter could be decided by the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh which is in the neighbourhood, to which Sri Shashi Nandan as well as Sri Ashok Khare have agreed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and the order dated 17.1.2009 (should be 21.1.2009) passed by the District Inspector of Schools is quashed. However, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the entire matter, including the complaint of the petitioner as well as the matter relating to the approval to the election held on 21.12.2008, shall now be decided by the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 shall file their respective objections/claims before the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh within three weeks from today alongwith a certified copy of this order. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 shall file their respective objections/claims before the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh within three weeks from today alongwith a certified copy of this order. The Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh shall thereafter call for the records of the District Inspector of Schools and if necessary hear the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 and the District Inspector of Schools before taking a decision in the matter. While deciding the matter, the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receiving the objections/claims of the parties. (emphasis supplied) 10. The Regional Joint Director of Education by the order dated 29th July, 2009 granted approval to the respondent-Committee of Management of the Institution with Ram Bhawan Gupta as the Manager on the basis of the elections held on 21st December, 2008. 11. It is this order dated 29th July, 2009 passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education that has been assailed in this petition. Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners assisted by Sri R.C. Dwivedi has made following submissions : 1. Not only had the Observer made an endorsement that the elections would be held in the Government Inter College on 21st December, 2008 but the District Inspector of Schools has also sent a communication dated 10th December, 2008 to the Manager for holding the elections on 21st December, 2008 in the premises of the Government Inter College and not in the Institution in view of the objections raised by a member. This information was also published in the newspaper and the elections were, therefore, required to be held on 21st December, 2008 in the campus of the Government Inter College, Deoria in the presence of the Observer. The elections were, accordingly, held in the campus of the Government Inter College but the rival Committee claimed to have held elections on 21st December, 2008 in the Institution without the presence of the Observer on the basis of the endorsement made by the Joint Director of Education without publishing it or bringing it to the notice of the members and these elections have been approved by the Joint Director of Education by the order dated 29th July, 2009. It is, therefore, his submission that the said order deserves to be set aside. 2. The District Inspector of Schools in his letter dated 2nd August, 2008 addressed to the Manager of the Institution for the holding of the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution had directed that the list of members of the General Body should be finalised after inviting objections and it was to be approved by the competent authority but this direction of the District Inspector of Schools was not complied with as the outgoing Manager did not publish the list of members and nor was the list got approved by the competent authority. 3. The Observer had also submitted a report to the District Inspector of Schools that the elections were held on 21st December, 2008 in the premises of the Government Inter College and he had also submitted the list of office bearers who had been elected. The District Inspector of Schools by the order dated 21st January, 2009 approved the said election in which Sri Ram Shahi was elected as the Manager. The Regional Joint Director of Education, however, assumed that there were 260 members in the General Body whereas there were only 187 members and for this reason, the Regional Joint Director of Education committed an illegality in holding that quorum was not complete in the election in which the petitioner was elected since only 77 members participated while the quorum was complete in the election of the respondent-Committee of Management in which 139 members participated. The quorum was required to be calculated on the basis of the list of 187 members and not 260 members even if it is held that the quorum provided for in the Scheme of Administration of the Society requires 1/3rd members of the Society to be present though the quorum is not provided in the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. 4. The Joint Director of Education committed an illegality in holding that the list of 260 members of the General Body was finalised on 28th December, 2007. 5. 4. The Joint Director of Education committed an illegality in holding that the list of 260 members of the General Body was finalised on 28th December, 2007. 5. The Regional Joint Director of Education has placed reliance on the comments dated 6th July, 2009 submitted by the District Inspector of Schools in the office of the Joint Director of Education on 16th July, 2009 after the petitioner had left the office but the said comments were not supplied to the petitioner to enable him to file the objections. The order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 12. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has, however, made the following submissions : (1) When the term of three years of the Committee of Management elected on 21st December, 2008 was coming to an end, an application was submitted before the District Inspector of Schools for appointment of an Observer for holding fresh election of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 25th December, 2011 and in the presence of the Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, the election was held on 25th December, 2011 in which Ram Bhawan Gupta was elected as the Manager and his signatures were also attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 30th December, 2011. Thus, as fresh elections have been taken place which have also been approved, the present petition has been rendered infructuous. (2) The election of the Committee of Management was required to be held on 21st December, 2008 in the premises of the Institution and not in the premises of the Government Inter College as was directed by the Joint Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur. (3) The report of the District Inspector of Schools is dated 6th July, 2011 and the date of hearing before the Joint Director of Education was fixed for 16th July, 2009. The petitioner is, therefore, not correct in asserting that the report was submitted on 16th July, 2009 after the petitioner had left the office. (4) The report of the District Inspector of Schools mentions that the list of 260 members had been finalised on 28th December, 2007. The petitioner is, therefore, not correct in asserting that fresh elections were required to be held after determining the list of members. (4) The report of the District Inspector of Schools mentions that the list of 260 members had been finalised on 28th December, 2007. The petitioner is, therefore, not correct in asserting that fresh elections were required to be held after determining the list of members. (5) In the elections said to have been held by the petitioner on 21st December, 2008 only 77 members participated which is less than the quorum of 1/3rd members, whereas in the election of the respondent-Committee of Management the quorum was complete as 139 members participated. 13. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 14. It is not in dispute that the term of the Committee of Management of the Institution is three years. In the election held in 2005 on the basis of the list of 187 members of the General Body, Chandra Pal Singh was elected as the Manager and Virendra Singh was elected as the President. Clause 6(3) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution requires that the election should be held in the presence of an Observer to be appointed by the District Inspector of Schools. The election that was held on 29th June, 2008 was held in the absence of an Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools and so the District Inspector of Schools was justified in issuing instructions on 2nd August, 2008 to the Committee of Management of the Institution to hold the elections in the presence of the Associate District Inspector of Schools as the Observer. A direction was also issued that the list of members of the General Body should be finalized after publishing the tentative list in newspapers and getting the final list approved from the Competent Authority. 15. It is the contention of the petitioners that the list was not finalized though it is asserted by the respondents that the list of members was finalised on 28th December, 2007. 16. According to the petitioners, the list consists of 187 members and the 2005 elections were also held from amongst these 187 members. According to the respondents, there are 260 members. 16. According to the petitioners, the list consists of 187 members and the 2005 elections were also held from amongst these 187 members. According to the respondents, there are 260 members. It is stated by the respondents in the supplementary counter-affidavit that 100 new members were enrolled on 20th November, 2007 and the list was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for granting approval and the District Inspector of Schools approved this list of 260 members by the order dated 28th December, 2007. 17. As noticed hereinabove, the District Inspector of Schools in his communication dated 2nd August, 2008 had directed for finalisation of the list of members after publication in the newspapers. There is nothing on the record to indicate that this exercise was undertaken. It will, therefore, not be appropriate for the Court to examine the rival contentions regarding the list of members of the General Body. The elections were required to be held after finalization of the list and after getting approval of the Competent Authority. 18. What also needs to be noticed is that the District Inspector of Schools had appointed the Finance and Accounts Officer as the Observer for holding of the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 21st December, 2008. The outgoing Manager had published a news item on 7th December, 2008 that the election would be held on 21st December, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. in the campus of the Institution. It is asserted by the petitioners that since the elections from 1987 were being held in the Government Inter College, Deoria, the Observer made an endorsement that the elections will be held in the campus of the Government Inter College and the petitioners also submitted an application to the District Inspector of Schools on 10th December, 2008 that the election should be held in the campus of the Government Inter College. The District Inspector of Schools accepted this contention of the petitioners and, accordingly, sent a communication dated 10th December, 2008 to the Manager of the Institution that the election should be held in the campus of the Government Inter College. The Manager, therefore, published a news item that the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution will be held on 21st December, 2008 in the campus of the Government Inter College. 19. The Manager, therefore, published a news item that the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution will be held on 21st December, 2008 in the campus of the Government Inter College. 19. However, the outgoing Manager filed an application before the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur on 19th December, 2008 that the election should be held in the campus of the Institution and not in the Government Inter College and the Joint Director of Education made an endorsement on the said application that the election should be held in the Institution. According to the petitioners, this endorsement was never communicated to the members of the General Body and the information was also not published in the newspaper as a result of which the members and the Observer went to the campus of the Government Inter College for the holding of the election. 20. Thus, in view of the conflicting decisions taken by the District Inspector of Schools and the Joint Director of Education regarding the place where the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was to be held, it transpires that two sets of elections were held. According to the petitioners, the election was held on 21st December, 2008 in the campus of the Government Inter College in the presence of the Observer from amongst the 187 members of the General Body while according to the respondents the election was held in the campus of the Institution from amongst 260 members of the General Body in the presence of the Observer. 21. The District Inspector of Schools had initially recognised the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution held in the campus of the Government Inter College in which the petitioner-Committee of Management was elected, but in view of the directions issued by the Court on 8th May, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 21653 of 2009 filed by the respondent-Committee of Management, the Joint Director of Education decided the matter and held that the election of the respondent-Committee of Management should be approved. 22. In coming to the conclusion, the Joint Director of Education has placed great reliance on the comments dated 6th July, 2009 submitted by the District Inspector of Schools. 22. In coming to the conclusion, the Joint Director of Education has placed great reliance on the comments dated 6th July, 2009 submitted by the District Inspector of Schools. It is asserted by the petitioners in paragraphs 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the writ petition that the copies of the comments were not supplied to the petitioners by the Joint Director of Education. The impugned order passed by the Joint Director of Education does not show that the comments of the District Inspector of Schools were supplied to the petitioner-Committee of Management of the Institution. The State has not filed any counter-affidavit despite time having been given. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Committee of Management there is no specific averment that the comments were supplied to the petitioner-Committee of Management of the Institution and what is stated is that the parties had stated that they do not want to say anything further in the matter. Thus, as there is no specific denial of the averments made in the writ petition that despite a request having been made by the petitioner for supply the comments submitted by the District Inspector of Schools, it has to be held that the comments were not supplied. The order passed by the Joint Director of Education, in such circumstances, stands vitiated as the comments of the District Inspector of Schools, which formed the basis of the order passed by the Joint Director of Education, were not supplied. 23. The Joint Director of Education has stated that the quorum in the election of the petitioner-Committee of Management was not complete since 77 members out of 260 members participated. As it has been held that the list of members was not finalised, the issue about quorum looses significance because this has to be determined with respect to the list of members of the General Body. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain this finding in the order dated 29th July, 2009 passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education. 24. The contention of Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Committee of Management is that the term of the Committee of Management elected in 2008 came to an end after which fresh elections were held on 25th December, 2011 and since these elections have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools, this petition has been rendered infructuous. 25. 25. It is not possible to accept this contention of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. When the order of the Joint Director of Education approving the respondent-Committee of Management cannot be sustained, it will not be appropriate to ignore the said decision only for the reason that the term of the Committee of Management elected in 2008 has come to an end. Learned counsel for the petitioners is, therefore, justified in asserting that it is necessary to decide this dispute because this will not only form the basis for the future elections to be held but it will also determine as to which Committee of Management should hold future election of the Committee of Management of the Institution. 26. In this connection the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Sri Raghubar Dayal Pathak Inter College, Etawah through its Manager Krishna Murari Pathak v. Committee of Management, Sri Raghubar Dayal Pathak Inter College, Etawah through its Alleged Manager Brij Bihari Lal Pathak and others, 2006 (7) ADJ 427 , needs to be noticed : “We are of the view that in the facts of the case and also in view of the fact that the elections held in the year 1999 and 2002 were found to be invalid, the Hon’ble Single Judge is right in directing to hold fresh election by an independent agency. Even during the course of submission inspite of repeated request, learned Counsel for the appellant could not show any evidence or material nor has brought anything on record to show that the elections held in the year 1999 and 2002 were validly held. The contention that since the orders dated 21.6.2005 and 22.6.2005 were not set aside, the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge is wrong, has also no substance for the reason that the elections of the year 1999 and 2002 having been found to be invalid, all subsequent actions or orders are also illegal and non-est in the eyes of law. Thus, we do not find any fault in the order or the Hon’ble Single Judge.” (emphasis supplied) 27. Thus, we do not find any fault in the order or the Hon’ble Single Judge.” (emphasis supplied) 27. This Court in Ram Kripal Singh and another v. Committee of Management, Uchchttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Newarhiya, district Jaunpur and others, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 344, also observed : “The appellants have filed two applications dated 9.11.1992 and 18.11.1992 in which it has been mentioned that the respondents have published a news item on 14.11.1992 for holding the election of the committee of management. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellants, which has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, committee, that election in fact has been held by the respondents committee on 29.11.1992 on which date new committee of management has been elected, which has also been recognised by the District Inspector of Schools. On the basis of the above election learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this appeal has become infructuous as no useful purpose would be served by deciding the same in view of the above election held on 29.11.1992. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. As mentioned hereinabove, election of the committee of management was claimed by both the factions of the committee of management to have been held on 5.5.2986. Even if this election is treated to be a valid election, the term of the committee of management so elected on the above date came to an end on 4.6.1989 and thereafter it was not open to the committee or its office bearers to hold the election. The election held on 29.11.1992 by the respondents committee, as such, is not suitable under law and is declared invalid. Consequently the order of the District Inspector of Schools, recognising the committee of management elected on 29.11.1992 and attesting the signatures of its manager is also declared illegal.” (emphasis supplied) 28. On the setting aside of the order passed by the Joint Director of Education, the normal course is to send the matter back to the Joint Director of Education for passing a fresh order but in the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear to be appropriate to issue such a direction. On the setting aside of the order passed by the Joint Director of Education, the normal course is to send the matter back to the Joint Director of Education for passing a fresh order but in the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear to be appropriate to issue such a direction. As noticed hereinabove, the District Inspector of Schools and the Joint Director of Education had issued conflicting orders for holding of the election at two different places, namely in the Institution itself and in the campus of the Government Inter College. The members were not informed about the change of place of the holding of the elections. The 2011 election can only be held by the Committee of Management duly elected in the 2008 elections. In such circumstances, fresh elections are required to be held in accordance with the observations made above. 29. The order dated 29th July, 2009 passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh is, accordingly, set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. The District Inspector of Schools shall ensure that fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution are held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and the observations made, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the District Inspector of Schools by either of the parties. ——————