Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shyam Kishore Gupta for the respondent No.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. The challenge in this petition is to the order of Addl. Commissioner Mr. B.L. Agrawal whereby he has directed the District Magistrate, Deoria, to call upon the District Inspector of Schools and the Basic Education Officer respectively to take action against the petitioner for having obtained recognition of four institutions within the same campus on the basis of identical revenue records. He has further directed the authorities to take action for lodging an F.I.R. and for withdrawing their recognition as well as for holding an inquiry as to whether any more such matters have been located or not which is in the shape of a general direction. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner has no authority either under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, to assume such jurisdiction of issuing directions for criminal prosecution or for taking action of withdrawing the recognition which has to be done by the authorities under the Act or not otherwise. I have heard learned counsel for the Basic Education Officer and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. It is not necessary to issue any notice to the respondent No.6 at this stage, who is described only as a complainant. A Basic School or a Junior High School including a Primary School is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The Court has been unable to find any authority having been conferred on the Commissioner or the Addl. Commissioner for taking an administrative action in respect of the recognition or running of such schools. Even otherwise, the Commissioner has not been empowered to draw penal action including the lodging of an F.I.R. or to issue any direction to the District Magistrate. Similarly, under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, none of these authorities are statutorily empowered to take any action. In view of the aforesaid facts, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the issue of powers being conferred on the administrative authority appears to be prima facie correct and the educational authorities cannot take any action unless they independently apply their mind and follow the process of law. In view of the aforesaid facts, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the issue of powers being conferred on the administrative authority appears to be prima facie correct and the educational authorities cannot take any action unless they independently apply their mind and follow the process of law. For the purpose of de-recognition of a Basic School, the power vests with the Basic Education Board for which an inquiry can be conducted by the Basic Education Officer under the 1972 Act and not otherwise. So far as derecognition of Intermediate College is concerned, the same falls within the power of U.P. High School and Intermediate Examination Board which is an authority created under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is, therefore, clear that the power of recognition or de-recognition vests with the respective Board under the 1972 Act or the 1921 Act or such authority which is empowered for the said purpose under valid law. Unless such orders are passed, there is no occasion for taking any action or proceeding to hold somebody guilty of having committed an offence so as to lodge an F.I.R. The directions, therefore, given by the learned Addl. Commissioner cannot be implemented straightway on his asking unless any offence is located by the educational authorities themselves. They have to act independently that too even within permissible limits of law. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Basic Education Officer or the District Inspector of Schools to make such inquiries that may be permissible in law in relation to the management and affairs of the respective institutions and action, if any, shall be taken only by such authorities, who are empowered under the 1972 Act or the 1921 Act. The action, therefore, shall not be taken on the mere recommendation of the Addl. Commissioner without application of mind by the concerned authority. The action, therefore, shall not be taken on the mere recommendation of the Addl. Commissioner without application of mind by the concerned authority. ____________ Hhhhhhhhhh 2013 (3) AWC 2742 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Sanjay Misra Yaduraj Singh and others Versus Board of Revenue, U. P., Allahabad and others C.M.W.P. No. 51665 of 2012 4-10-2012 U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -- Section 331(4) U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Section 331 (4)—Second appeal- Restoration—Delay—Compromise in second appeal with proposal not to give 1/5th share to each of parties— Board of Revenue took view that when suit and appeal decided finding share of parties—Change of such shares by compromise not lawful— View of Board cannot be said to be suffering from any error in law— Second appeal rejected by Board after restoring it on ground that there was no substantial question of law involved in second appeal—Review application rejected on ground of non-explanation for condo nation of delay of six years—No error in said order—No merit in challenge. [Paras 10 to 14] ____________ Hhhhhhhh 2013 (3) AWC 2748 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Vineet Saran, Mushaffey Ahmad Raja Ram Versus State of U. P. and others C.M.W.P. No. 53273 of 2012 31-10-2012 Constitution of India—Article 14— Principles of natural justice— Dealership of fair price shop of petitioner suspended—But suspension order withdrawn—Subsequently, order withdrawing suspension order withdrawn—This withdrawal order quashed by writ court—Dealership of petitioner cancelled by S.D.M.—But no opportunity of hearing given to petitioners before passing impugned order—Order in question quashed— As opportunity given by Enquiry Officer—Would not remove lacuna. [Paras 5 to 7] ____________