Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anil Bhushan learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. This petition has a chequered history and the election of the committee of management has been in dispute for a long time. The matter ultimately came up before a Division Bench of this Court and in view of the judgment dated 29.7.2009 a direction was issued for holding a fresh election. However, while issuing the said direction it was clarified that the committee of management that was then continuing shall continue to manage the affairs of the institution till the term comes to an end. It is undisputed that the petitioner no.2 Om Prakash Gupta was the then Manager of the committee of management who was in effective control. 3. The District Inspector of Schools in compliance of the judgment of the special appellate bench proceeded and ultimately on 19.12.2009 finalised the list relating to the electoral college of the general body entitled to participate in the elections of the Committee of Management of Sarvodaya Inter College Sudnipur district Jaunpur. 4. The contesting respondent Gyan Chand Yadav was dissatisfied with the declaration and he raised certain objections, which according to the petitioner had already been considered and rejected byt the District Inspector of Schools. 5. It appears that the District Inspector of Schools was again approached and he passed a fresh order on 10.5.2010. reviewing the earlier electoral college finalised by him. This was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.30937 of 2010 where this Court passed an interim order on 25.5.2010 which is quoted herein: The petitioners have sought the quashing of the order dated 10th May, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur by which he has determined the list of members of the general body entitled to participate in the election of the Committee of Management of the society to be held on 26th May, 2010. It is the contention of Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1030/2009, the District Inspector of Schools, after inviting objections, finalized the electoral college consisting of 100 members and published the same in the news paper on 26th January, 2010. The objections filed by the respondent no. 5 Gyan Chand Yadav were specifically rejected, but without giving any opportunity to the parties, the District Inspector of Schools has again considered the objections filed by Gyan Chandra Yadav and has finalized another list dated 10th May, 2010. This list consists of forty members only and the petitioners have been excluded even their names appeared in the earlier list published on 26th January, 2010. In view of the submissions advanced by learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and in view of the averments made in the writ petition, the election of the Committee of Management of the Society may be held on 26th May, 2010, but the result shall not be declared. Learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondents no. 1 to 4. Sri Kripa Shankar has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 5. They prayed for and are allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this petition for admission/hearing in the week commencing 12th July, 2010. 6. According to the said interim order the elections were directed to go on but the results were directed not to be declared. The said writ petition was ultimately allowed on 26.4.2012 and the order of the District Inspector of Schools was quashed. This Court further issued a direction that the District Inspector of Schools shall first satisfy himself about the finalisation of the electoral college as done earlier on 19.12.2009 and in case he came to the conclusion that the electoral college had not been properly determined then he would invite objections and then determination shall be made in accordance with law. 7. By the impugned order the District Inspector of Schools has simultaneously proceeded to dispose of the dispute relating to the member ship as aforesaid and has also recognised the elections that had been held pursuant to the electoral college finalised on 10.5.2010. 8. Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the District Inspector of Schools has proceeded malafidely to frame these two issues without complying with the directions of the High Court dated 26.4.2012 in letter and spirit. He submits that the judgment of this Court clearly and unequivocally required the District Inspector of Schools to first satisfy himself about the previous determination of the electoral college. He submits that the judgment of this Court clearly and unequivocally required the District Inspector of Schools to first satisfy himself about the previous determination of the electoral college. Sri Khare contends that the District Inspector of Schools has no where adverted to the earlier determination made on 19.12.2009. In such circumstances he has acted contrary to the directions issued by this Court.He further submits that the issue relating to the recognition of the elections could not have gone into by him inasmuch as the direction of the High Court was to determine the electoral college only. 9. It has been pointed out that against the aforesaid judgment dated 26.4.2012 Special Appeal No.1023 of 2012 was filed but the same was dismissed on 30.5.2012 upholding the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge 10. Sri Anil Bhushan learned counsel for the respondent contends that the objections raised were considered and the order dated 10.5.2010 was passed determining the electoral college on the ground that the members who had participated prior to 1999 were valid members and therefore elections have to be held only on the strength of the said electoral college, which was held ,and therefore the District Inspector of Schools has not acted illegally in recognising the committee of management of the respondent. He submits that the said determination being disputed questions of fact and having been determined in accordance with the direction of the High Court, the same do not require any interference. He further submits that the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate any error in the said determination of the electoral college on facts, hence the impugned order does require any interference. 11 .Sri Bhushan further contends that the matter can be disposed of finally at this stage and no counter affidavit is required to be filed by the contesting respondent. Learned standing counsel has adopted the same argument as Sri Anil Bhushan therefore with the consent of the parties, the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage. 12. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by this Court from time to time, the District Inspector of Schools framed two issues namely determination of the validity of the electoral college and the validity of the elections dated 26.5.2010. 12. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by this Court from time to time, the District Inspector of Schools framed two issues namely determination of the validity of the electoral college and the validity of the elections dated 26.5.2010. In the opinion of the Court the second issue was irrelevant and it is the first issue which ought to have been decided by the District Inspector of Schools in terms of the judgment dated 26.4.2012. The District Inspector of Schools cannot review his own order being an administrative authority unless there is any established fraud or misrepresentation. 13. The judgment of this Court clearly records that the District Inspector of Schools will have to first satisfy himself with the earlier determination of 29.12.2009. In pursuance of the impugned order and the discussions by the District Inspector of Schools there does not appear to be any consideration of the electoral college dated 19.12.2009 and its validity. In view of this and non-availability of any such findings the District Inspector of Schools has committed a manifest error by proceeding to decide the matter in the teeth of the direction of the High Court dated 26.4.2012. 14. The District Inspector of Schools therefore ought to have first addressed himself to this issue before having proceeded to determine any other question. Having not done so the impugned order is vitiated. It is accordingly unsustainable and is quashed. 15. The matter is remanded back to the District Inspector of Schools to decide again in accordance with the direction of the High Court dated 26.4.2012 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The District Inspector of Schools shall pass an order within a period of two months. 16. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.