Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.— Heard Sri Yogish Kumar Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tomar learned standing counsel. The challenge raised is to an order of single operation passed by the District Inspector of Schools on the ground of lapse of tenure of the Managing Committee. Learned standing counsel prays that he may be granted time to file counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. In view of the facts of this case, this Court does not find it necessary to grant any time to the respondents as the order is in violation of principles of natural justice and also appears to be suffering from malice in law for the reasons given hereinafter. The Institution is an Intermediate College and is governed by the provisions of the U.P.Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Payment of Salary Act, 1971 ( U.P.Act No.24 of 1971). The petitioner Committee was elected on 28.7.2009 pursuant to the exercise having been under taken by the Prabandh Sanchalak and the papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for necessary action. An order was passed on 15.10.2009 declaring that the Committee is being recognised except for the post of Manager. It was further indicated therein that the Deputy Manager so elected shall continue to perform the duties of the Manager till fresh elections for the said post are held. This order came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.7127 of 2010 in which a direction was issued to the Regional Level Committee to decide the matter. The Regional Level Committee vide order dated 19.6.2010 upheld the validity of the elections and found the decision of the District Inspector of Schools to be correct. The objections that were raised against the elections were rejected. Aggrieved the complainant Dr. Shailendra Kumar Sachan filed Writ Petition No.44436 of 2010 which was disposed of without interfering with the order passed by the Regional Level Committee with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to hold fresh elections on the post of Manager within two months. The objections that were raised against the elections were rejected. Aggrieved the complainant Dr. Shailendra Kumar Sachan filed Writ Petition No.44436 of 2010 which was disposed of without interfering with the order passed by the Regional Level Committee with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to hold fresh elections on the post of Manager within two months. The order dated 30.7.2010 is extracted herein above: "The petitioner, who had also contested the election for the post of Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution, has sought the quashing of the order dated 19th June, 2010 passed by the Regional Level Committee as also the order dated 15th October, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur. By the order dated 15th October, 2009, the District Inspector of Schools approved the election of the Committee of the Management of the Institution except for the post of Manager since both the contestants for this post had got equal number of votes and, therefore, a direction has been issued that the Deputy Manager shall function as the Manager till the fresh election for the post of Manager is held. By the order dated 19th June, 2010,the Regional Level Committee has rejected the representation filed by the petitioner against the said order. The sole grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of the petition is that fresh elections for the post of Manager may be held expeditiously since despite the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 15th October, 2009 they have not been held. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents states that election for the post of Manager shall be held expeditiously. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur to ensure that fresh election for the post of Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution is held, if it has not already been held, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the District Inspector of Schools by either of the parties." Sri Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fresh elections were held on 19.1.2011 on the post of Manager and recognition to the same was granted by the District Inspector of Schools on 25.1.2011. In the aforesaid back ground the tenure of the committee of management which is three years and one month has to be counted w.e.f. 15th October, 2009 onwards after the recognition was granted and charge was handed over by the Prabandh Sanchalak. He submits that the tenure of the Committee would not commence from the date of elections as charge has not been handed over to the newly elected committee of management by the Prabandh Sanchalak who was continuing in the institution. It is urged that the impugned order dated 1.9.2012 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice without giving any notice or opportunity as required. In my opinion both the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are correct.The impugned order on a bare perusal appears to have been passed without any notice and opportunity and is in violation of principles of natural justice. On the issue of the tenure of the committee of management it is contended that if the petitioner took charge after recognition dated 15.10.2009 then the period of three years one month would expire on 14.11.2012 and not prior to that. This contention also appears to be correct. The third fact of this case is that it is undisputed that the committee of management has held fresh elections and the documents have been forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for recognition. In view of the aforesaid circumstances the District Inspector of Schools ought to have taken notice of such facts before proceeding toto pass the impugned order. There is no indication of any default of pyment of salary as such Section 5 of the U.P.Act No.24 of 1971 could not have been invoked. Accordingly for the reasons given above this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.9.2012 is set aside. The District Inspector of Schools shall examine the claim of fresh elections which has been tendered by the petitioner within 3 weeks and pass an appropriate order thereon. _____________