JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P. Upadhyay who had put in appearance in writ petition No. 18461 of 2012 on behalf of a complainant Dharamveer Singh Advocate, whose impleadment application has already been rejected today in the said writ petition. However in the interest of justice, Sri Upadhyay has been heard in terms of Chapter XXII Rule 5A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 2. The petitioner Committee of Management was continuing in effective control when an order superseding the Committee under Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 came to be passed by the State Government on 28.3.2012. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 18461 of 2012 and the operation of the said order was stayed which has been continued until further orders today as no counter-affidavit has been filed by the State therein. 3. The petitioner Committee which was therefore in effective control in the aforesaid circumstances made a request to the District Inspector of Schools for sending an observer in order to hold fresh elections. The District Inspector of Schools, Agra vide his order dated 28th August, 2012 granted permission to the petitioner-institution for holding fresh elections. A copy of the said order is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 4. It appears that immediately thereafter Mr. Dharamveer Singh Advocate who had filed the impleadment application in the previous writ petition, which has been rejected today, again moved a complaint before the District Inspector of Schools raising a dispute that the petitioner Committee is not authorized to hold elections. 5. The District Inspector of Schools ex parte to the petitioner without putting him to notice passed the impugned order on 31st August, 2012 withdrawing the earlier permission granted to the petitioner for holding elections. It is this order which is under challenge. 6. Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is absolutely erroneous, inasmuch as, it proceeds on an assumption of fact which is untenable in law. The pendency of the earlier writ petition in no way disentitles the petitioner from holding fresh elections as the tenure is coming to an end. 6. Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is absolutely erroneous, inasmuch as, it proceeds on an assumption of fact which is untenable in law. The pendency of the earlier writ petition in no way disentitles the petitioner from holding fresh elections as the tenure is coming to an end. He submits that the interim order passed therein, to the contrary, entitles the petitioner to continue to function as the Committee of Management and it is therefore incumbent upon the petitioner committee to hold fresh elections as the tenure is about to expire. 7. In my opinion the District Inspector of Schools had rightly granted permission on 28th August, 2012. He had no authority to retrieve that order on the mere complaint of Mr. Dharamveer Singh who is not even a member of the General Body. Apart from this, the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18461 of 2012, entitles him to continue to discharge the duties of the Committee of Management which also includes the holding of elections. The holding of fresh elections will in no way affect the status of the previous writ petition. The District Inspector of Schools without examining the aforesaid aspect of the matter and without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner has therefore committed a manifest error by passing the impugned order dated 31st August, 2012. The reason for passing the order has already been mentioned therein which is obviously the pendency of the earlier writ petition and no other reason. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no necessity to give any time to the learned Standing Counsel to file a counter-affidavit. The impugned order ex-facie being in violation of principles of natural justice and proceeding on an erroneous assumption is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 31st August, 2012 is set aside. The petitioner Committee shall proceed to hold the elections as per the order of the DIOS dated 28.8.2012 in accordance with the Scheme of Administration and the DIOS shall Co-operate in the same. ——————