A.P. Sahi, J.— Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Mishra for the respondent no. 4. This writ petition relates to the dispute of the office-bearers of the Committee of Management of Rambeti Vidya Samiti which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and manages an aided Junior High School of the same name. The petitioner Jagdish Chandra Dixit claims himself to be the Manager of the said institution and he contends that the impugned order dated 3rd of May, 2012 which is in the shape of a correction of the earlier order dated 14th March, 2012 deserves to be set aside. By way of an amendment, the order passed by the Basic Education Officer on 17th July, 2012 has also been assailed which has upheld the claim of the respondent no. 4 and has rejected the claim of the petitioner. The amendment application allowing the challenge raised to the order dated 17.7.2012 was implemented in terms of the order dated 9.8.2012 passed by this Court. Sri S.K. Mishra has filed a short counter affidavit and a detailed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 4 which has been taken on record. Sri Ashok Khare, submits that the order dated 17.7.2012 is in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the said order proceeded as if one Mahipal Singh was the representative on behalf of the petitioner which fact is absolutely incorrect as there was no authorization on the part of the petitioner in favour of Mahipal Singh to represent his cause. The second ground of the violation of principles of natural justice is that the Basic Education Officer has proceeded to pass the order on the strength of the report dated 1st of June, 2012, copy whereof was never supplied to the petitioner nor its contents were made known to him, hence, the impugned order is vitiated. The third ground of challenge is that the order dated 3rd May, 2012 was a mala-fide order as it was passed on the very next day of the judgment of this Court dated 2.5.2012 in writ petition no. 20000 of 2012. The third ground of challenge is that the order dated 3rd May, 2012 was a mala-fide order as it was passed on the very next day of the judgment of this Court dated 2.5.2012 in writ petition no. 20000 of 2012. He submits that the said order dated 3.5.2012 has been made the basis for passing of the order dated 17.7.2012 which could not have been done as the said order became non-existent with the quashing of the original order dated 14.3.2012 by this Court vide judgment dated 2.5.2012. Sri Khare therefore submits that apart from other facts, the aforesaid three grounds are sufficient to set aside the impugned orders dated 3rd May, 2012 and 17.7.2012. Replying to the aforesaid submissions, Sri Mishra submits that on merits, it is evident that the resolutions were validly passed under which the answering respondent no. 4 had been elected as the Manager and the constitution of his Committee was valid. Apart from this, the correction order dated 3rd of May, 2012 did not in any way alter the situation as it was a mere correction. He further submits that Jagdish Chandra Dixit the petitioner had himself appeared before the Basic Education Officer and filed an application on 5th June, 2012 narrating his facts and he did not choose to challenge the report dated 1st of June, 2012. With the aid of paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit he also submits that the petitioner had knowledge of the report dated 1.6.2012. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Authorities, it appears that this dispute arose after allegations came forward that Hodil Singh the President of the Society, and Data Bax Singh the Manager of the Society had been removed. The Basic Education Officer passed the order on 14th March, 2012 recognizing the election of the respondent no. 4 held on 12.2.2012. This order of the Basic Education Officer was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 20000 of 2012. This Court vide judgment dated 2nd May, 2012 allowed the writ petition making observations with regard to the manner in which the Basic Education Officer had proceeded to accept the claim of the respondent and also expressed its concern about the same. This Court vide judgment dated 2nd May, 2012 allowed the writ petition making observations with regard to the manner in which the Basic Education Officer had proceeded to accept the claim of the respondent and also expressed its concern about the same. Since the aforesaid judgment discloses the entire background of the dispute therefore the judgment is extracted herein under:- Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J. Jagdish Chandra Dixit, describing himself as Manager of Smt. Ram Beti Junior High School, has approached this Court, questioning the validity of decision dated 14.03.2012, wherein District Basic Education Officer has proceeded to recognize the elections dated 12.02.2012, wherein Hodil Singh has been shown to have been elected as President and Teekam Singh as Manager. Brief background of the case is that in the district of Firozabad there is a society known as Ram Beti Vidya Samittee bearing registration No.524/1968-69 dated 04.09.1968. Said society has established a recognized and aided Junior High School at Imalia in Ambergarh. The affairs of the society are run and managed as per the bylaws framed under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Under the bylaws there is provision of constitution of an elected Committee of Management to run and manage the affairs of the of the educational institution established by the society, namely, Smt. Ram Beti Junior High School. The term of the Committee of Management is three years. Originally the institution fell within the territorial district of Etah, but after carvation of new district Firozabad, presently it stands included in the district of Firozabad. The aforesaid institution is governed as per the provisions as contained under U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder as well as the provisions of U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978. The Committee of Management of the society is also the Committee of Management of the institution. Elections of the Committee of Management are held at periodical interval and the last such election was held on 30.10.2009. With regard to the said election there existed a dispute, which was decided by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra by order dated 16.11.2009 approving the elections dated 03.10.2009, wherein Data Bux Singh was elected as Manager and the election set up by Meena Devi had been turned down. With regard to the said election there existed a dispute, which was decided by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra by order dated 16.11.2009 approving the elections dated 03.10.2009, wherein Data Bux Singh was elected as Manager and the election set up by Meena Devi had been turned down. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, list of office bearers and members of the Committee of Management for the year 2009-10 was also registered by the Deputy Registrar. In the election dated 03.10.2009 one Hodil Singh was elected as President, Data Bux Singh as Manager, Rajendra Pal Singh as Deputy Manager and Jagdish Chandra Dixit as Treasurer. A petition under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 had been filed by Ishwari Singh and 20 others before the Deputy Registrar. It was registered as case No.2 of 2010-11 and the same is pending consideration. While the said Committee of Management was functional, allegations came forward against Hodil Singh; his conduct was considered in the meeting of the general body dated 11.12.2011, and a resolution was passed removing him from membership as well as from the office of the President, and in the vacancy so caused Ashok Kumar Upadhyaya was elected as President. In another meeting of the general body dated 29.01.2012 Data Bex Singh was removed from the office of Manager and in his place Jagdish Chandra Dixit was elected as Manager. Rajendra Pal Singh was removed from the office of Deputy Manager and replaced by Smt. Neelam Pachauri. The vacancy of Treasurer was filled up by electing Durgesh Sharma. Said proceedings were filed before the Deputy Registrar and Deputy District Magistrate along with covering letter of Ashok Kumar Upadhayaya on 04.04.2012. On 14.03.2012 an order has been passed by the District Basic Education Officer proceeding to grant recognition to the election dated 12.02.2012, in which a committee of Management with Hodil Singh and Teekam Singh are said to have been elected as President and Manager respectively. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Teekam Singh and therein plea has been taken that the Committee of Management with Data Bux Singh as Manager and Hodil Singh as President was duly recognized and the list of office bearers and members was registered pursuant to order dated 16.11.2009. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Teekam Singh and therein plea has been taken that the Committee of Management with Data Bux Singh as Manager and Hodil Singh as President was duly recognized and the list of office bearers and members was registered pursuant to order dated 16.11.2009. Plea has also been set up that the Committee of Management invited applications for induction of members and on 15.01.2012 Teekam Singh, along with 126 others, was inducted as member; it has also been stated that on 24.01.2012 Data Bux Singh tendered his resignation from the post of Manager and same was accepted and in his place Teekam Singh claims to have been elected as Manager. Thereafter, list of office bearers and members was submitted before the Deputy Registrar on 14.02.2012, and thereafter, it has been stated that District Basic Education Officer attested the signatures. Stand has been taken that Teekam Singh had been elected as Manager for the remaining term of the Committee of Management and the documents filed by the petitioners have been termed to be forged. Short counter affidavit has also been filed. To the counter affidavit rejoinder affidavit has also been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit and reiterating the averments mentioned in the writ petition. After the pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sidharth Khare, Advocate, contended with vehemence that in the present case totally unreasoned and cryptic order has been passed and that too without providing any opportunity of hearing, as such impugned order is liable to be set aside. Countering the said submissions, learned standing counsel as well as Sri S.K. Mishra, Advocate, submit that rightful orders have been passed recognizing Teekam Singh as Manager, and in view of this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual situation which has so emerged in the present case, is that in the district of Firozabad there is a society known as Ram Beti Vidya Samittee bearing registration No.524/1968-69 dated 04.09.1968. Said society has established a recognized and aided Junior High School at Imalia in Ambergarh. Record in question reflects that both the respective parties are setting up claim and counter claim. Said society has established a recognized and aided Junior High School at Imalia in Ambergarh. Record in question reflects that both the respective parties are setting up claim and counter claim. The petitioners in their turn have come up with a case that Hodil Singh was removed from the office of the President and in the vacancy so cause Ashok Kumar Upadhyaya was elected as President; similarly Data Bux Singh was removed from the office of Manager and in his place Jagdish Chandra Dixit was elected as Manager. Rajendra Pal Singh was removed from the office of Deputy Manager and in his place Neelam Pachauri was elected as Deputy Manager, and while the vacancy caused on the post of Treasurer by election of Jagdish Chandra Dixit as Manager, Durgesh Sharma was elected as Treasurer. On the other hand, respondents have been claiming that membership drive taken on 15.01.2012, wherein 127 incumbents, including Teekam Singh, were enrolled as members, theory had been set up that Data Bux Singh tendered his resignation on 24.01.2012, which was accepted and in his place Teekam Singh was elected as Manager. The most surprising feature of the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer is that it is based on the election dated 12.01.2012, wherein Hodil Singh was elected as President and Teekam Singh as Manager, whereas resolution dated 12.01.2012 appended before this Court shows that vacancy occurred on account of resignation of Data Bux Singh, has been filled up by the Committee of Management. Once claim and counter claim were there, then the District Basic Education Officer was obliged under law to have examined the claim set up by the respective parties before proceeding to accord recognition. In the present case, District Basic Education has not undertaken any exercise worth the name, and straightaway on the basis of election dated 12.12.2012, wherein Hodil Singh has been elected as President and Teekam Singh as Manager recognition has been accorded, whereas said proceedings have been sought to be explained by Teekam Singh by contending that only casual vacancy which had occurred, had been filled up. In view of this once order in question is unreasoned order having been passed without affording opportunity of hearing and there has been claim and counter claim, it would be much more expedient that the order impugned be quashed and the District Basic Education Officer be directed to decide the matter afresh by reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to Jagdish Chandra Dixit as well as Teekam Singh, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 14.03.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. The District Basic Education Officer is directed to decide the matter afresh by reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to Jagdish Chandra Dixit as well as Teekam Singh, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." It appears that on the very next day i.e. on 3rd May, 2012 the Basic Education Officer passed an order of correction indicating that Teekam Singh has been accepted as the Manager for the rest of the term i.e. uptill 30th October, 2012. It is this order which was initially challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the correction order is a clear manipulation and the Basic Education Officer has failed to comply with the judgment dated 2nd May, 2012. It was urged that the order was mala-fidely passed on the very next day of the delivery of judgment with a view to facilitate the cause of the respondent no. 4. At that stage Sri S.K. Mishra had pointed out the passing of the order dated 17th July, 2012 when the writ petition was presented whereafter the amendment application was filed and allowed and the matter has now proceeded on the basis of the order dated 17.7.2012. The impugned order dated 17.7.2012 categorically records findings of effective control and the validity of the respondent no. 4 Committee of Management on the basis of the order dated 3rd of May, 2012. In the opinion of the Court, this was a clear erroneous approach, inasmuch as, once the original order dated 14th March, 2012 had been quashed by the Court any order of correction of the said order on 3rd of May, 2012 had no legs to stand. In the opinion of the Court, this was a clear erroneous approach, inasmuch as, once the original order dated 14th March, 2012 had been quashed by the Court any order of correction of the said order on 3rd of May, 2012 had no legs to stand. The order dated 3rd of May, 2012 was therefore non-existent as the original order dated 14.3.2012 had already been quashed and the same could not have been made the basis of the passing of the order dated 17th July, 2012. In view of this position the impugned order dated 17.7.2012 is unsustainable. Apart from this, there is no material on record except the averment contained in paragraph 24 that the petitioner was made aware of the contents of the report dated 1.6.2012 which has been made the basis of the passing of the impugned order. Once the petitioner was not apprised of the said contents then the order can be safely presumed to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, a material about which the petitioner had no knowledge could not have been utilized against him without putting him to notice. The law on this issue is well settled and to support the same reference may be had to the case of M/s Rayeen Fruit Company and 30 others Vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 2000 Selected Allahabad Cases V-2 Page 172. Accordingly, in the opinion of the court, the impugned order also violates the principles of natural justice and therefore cannot be sustained. The issue as to whether Mahipal Singh was the proper representative of the petitioner or not need not be gone into, inasmuch as, the order is being set aside on the aforesaid grounds and the matter shall now be again decided by the Basic Education Officer after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and allowing them to raise their objections including the objection against the report dated 1.6.2012. The Basic Education Officer shall decide the matter as directed by this Court in the judgment dated 2.5.2012 within a period of two months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order before him. The writ petition is allowed. _