JUDGMENT NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the orders of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, dated 25.11.1991 (Annexure 16) and order dated 30.08.1996 (Annexure 21), by which the Director first accepted plea of the private respondents that there was change in the Managing Committee of Azad Uchcha Vidyalaya, Bishanpur, Dhoraiya, Bhagalpur (for brevity the School) and later ordered for fresh elections of the members of the Managing Committee of the School in question. 2. There are two private respondents i.e. respondents no. 6 and 7. Respondent no. 6 is Md. Suleman, the Secretary of Siddique Talimi Anjuman and respondent no. 7 is the President of Siddique Talimi Anjuman. They seek to oust the members of the Managing Committee of Azad Uchcha Vidyalaya, Bishanpur, Daraiya, which was earlier in Banka Sub-Division in the district of Bhagalpur, now in the district of Banka. 3. It appears that this writ petition having been filed against the orders as noted above in the year 1997, respondents no. 6 and 7 were noticed, they appeared and after hearing them by order dated 11.02.1999 passed in this case, this case was admitted for hearing, but while doing so, an interim order was passed by this Court virtually staying Annexure 16 and 21 and permitting the petitioners to carry on with the management of the School in question. As such the petitioners are in control of the School in question till the date. 4. From the bulky records of the case, it appears that there are counter affidavits on behalf of the State and respondent no. 7, but though respondent no. 6 Md. Suleman, who claims to be the Secretary of the new Managing Committee, appeared and was represented, no counter affidavit was filed. This is relevant because till 1988 Md. Suleman had been the Headmaster of the School in question and there was no dispute. It is immediately after he retired that the dispute with regard to the Managing Committee started. He was the best person to take stand in the matter and bring full facts on record, but he chose to keep silent. As would be discussed later, this silence was very pertinent. 5. It is immediately after he retired that the dispute with regard to the Managing Committee started. He was the best person to take stand in the matter and bring full facts on record, but he chose to keep silent. As would be discussed later, this silence was very pertinent. 5. It appears that there being a good number of members of Muslim Community in and around Bishanpur in Banka Sub-Division of district Bhagalpur as it then was, local Muslim Community decided to open and establish the School known as Azad Uchcha Vidyalaya in the year 1959. In due course of time, it got full recognition from the Secondary Education Council, Bihar. In 1965 the State Government recognized and declared the School to be a Muslim Minority School. It appears that in 1968 a Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with its registration number 26 of 1968-69, known as Anjuman-E-Islahu-Muslimin. The said Society was situated in the district of Santhal Parganas, as it then was. Apparently this Society was established for running and managing educational institutions of Muslim Community. In 1977, petitioner no. 2 Shamshuzzoha, who was then managing the School, filed an application before the said Anjuman-E-Islahu-Muslimin (for brevity Anjuman Society). On 05.01.1978, the said Society granted affiliation to the said School in question and took over the management. Petitioner no. 2 was confirmed and appointed as Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said School by the said Anjuman Society. Thus, from that date onwards, the management of the School vested in the said Society and petitioner no. 2 acted as the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School as duly recognized by the said Society. In conformity with the memorandum of the said Anjuman Society, by-laws for the management of the School was framed, which was approved by the Anjuman Society. In between, studies were regularly imparted in the School, students were sent up for examination to the Bihar School Examination Board and its predecessor and forms and fees were deposited under the authority of petitioner no. 2 as the Secretary of the Managing Committee through the Headmaster, who, at that time, was Md. Suleman (respondent no. 6). 6. It appears that soon after Md. Suleman retired as Head Master, allegedly local people got together and conducted a meeting, in which petitioner no. 2 as the Secretary of the Managing Committee through the Headmaster, who, at that time, was Md. Suleman (respondent no. 6). 6. It appears that soon after Md. Suleman retired as Head Master, allegedly local people got together and conducted a meeting, in which petitioner no. 2 and other members of the Managing Committee were ousted and a new Managing Committee with Md. Suleman as its Secretary was installed. This was brought to the notice of the Anjuman Society, which clearly disapproved that move, cancelled that unauthorized meeting and ordered for reinstatement of the old Managing Committee. This is where the whole dispute begins. This is where the Sub-Divisional and District level authorities and the State became active and they started interfering in the matter of constitution of the Managing Committee, which ultimately has culminated in the impugned orders as noted above. 7. The private respondents claimed that the old Managing Committee having been ousted in the year 1988, the new Managing Committee took charge under the aegis of a new Society Siddique Talimi Anjuman, but it could not be disputed that this new Society itself came into existence only in the year 1991 and it is pertinent to note that private respondents are unable to explain this transition of the Managing Committee, whereby the old Managing Committee under the said Anjuman Society was sought to be ousted by people not connected with the Anjuman Society, which had the control over management of the School in question and then they got associated with the new Society, which itself was formed in the year 1991. 8. Effectively the orders of the State, which are under challenge, are virtually recognizing the said new Society and the Managing Committee, which, as noted above, have been stayed by this Court and the old Managing Committee is continuing. 9. In this perspective, the question for consideration is whether there was a valid change of management and whether the State was justified in its actions? 10. The first thing that I would like to observe is that we are dealing with a minority institution duly recognized by the State. The right to manage such Schools is constitutionally protected in terms of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. If there was inter se dispute between the Managing Committee Members, the State cannot intervene and start adjudicating and deciding the issue. The right to manage such Schools is constitutionally protected in terms of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. If there was inter se dispute between the Managing Committee Members, the State cannot intervene and start adjudicating and deciding the issue. State should have relegated the parties to settle their dispute in a properly constituted suit in this regard and permit the parties to lead evidence and leave it to the Civil Court to decide the issue. This is so because by the State interfering in such matters, they would be directly involved in management disputes of a minority institution, which is neither permissible nor desirable in view of Article 30 of the Constitution. As, however, the State decided to intervene in the controversy, parties have joined issues before this Court. 11. In my view the issue can be decided in a different manner. Both contesting parties had been disputing that prior to the dispute in the year 1988, there was a Managing Committee, of which the petitioners were incharge. In 1980 the State Government decided to take over most of the privately managed Secondary Schools and for the said purpose passed an Ordinance in that regard, which later culminated in Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over Management and Control) Act, 1981. Section 18 of the said Act deals with minority institutions. Section 18, inter-alia, recognizes the right of minority institutions to manage their schools and the Schools were not taken over. Such Schools had to inform the Government about their management through a Society, which was duly registered. Thus, virtually in terms of section 18 of the said Act, Minority Schools had to be managed by the Managing Committee through a Society registered. Section 18 further provides that so far as appointments of Teachers in such Minority (recognized) Schools are concerned, the Managing Committee would be free to make appointments, but those appointments had to be approved by the School Service Board (Vidyalaya Sewa Board). Where Schools enjoyed grants from the State, posts had to be sanctioned and appointments had to be approved through the School Service Board. 12. If we keep these provisions in mind, then at least from 1981, if not from earlier, the Minority School should have been managed through a registered Society. The case of the petitioners is that the Managing Committee of the School was formed under the aegis of the Anjuman Society. 12. If we keep these provisions in mind, then at least from 1981, if not from earlier, the Minority School should have been managed through a registered Society. The case of the petitioners is that the Managing Committee of the School was formed under the aegis of the Anjuman Society. Petitioner no. 2-Shamshuzzoha was the Secretary and Md. Suleman (respondent no. 6) was the Headmaster. This is where the role of respondent no. 6 becomes important. Petitioners have annexed documents to show that all along Md. Suleman (respondent no. 6) was signing as the Head Master of the School, which also contained clear endorsement of petitioner no. 2-Shamshuzzoha as the Secretary of the Managing Committee through the registered Anjuman Society. As noted above, respondent no. 6, though appeared in this writ proceeding, has not even attempted to challenge this fact though he was the alleged signatory to such document. One of these documents is Annexure 22 (typed copy), a copy of the original being part of Annexure 25. This is a document, which was forwarded by the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur on 12.09.1981 to the Secretary, Vidyalaya Sewa Board, Government of Bihar, Patna at Patna with regard to appointment of one Md. Nasim Akhtar and approval of his appointment. In this, it is clearly stated that the Managing Committee of the School is affiliated to the said Anjuman Society and this document is signed by petitioner no. 2 Shamshuzzoha and respondent no. 6 Md. Suleman. Respondent no. 6 Md. Suleman has not challenged this document. 13. An argument on behalf of the private respondents was feebly made that there existed no Anjuman Society nor was the school’s management affiliated or controlled by the said Society. In my view, the fats and in particular Annexure 22 & 25 clearly falsify this stand of the private respondents. Further, if there was no such Managing Committee through the registered Society then how the school continued in terms of Section 18 of the Take Over Act of 1981. Surely the respondents had to explain the same and reconcile the situation. They failed to bring anything on record for this period between 1981 to 1988 and have not been able to contradict Annexure 22 & 25, which are contemporaneous documents of the year 1981 itself. 14. Surely the respondents had to explain the same and reconcile the situation. They failed to bring anything on record for this period between 1981 to 1988 and have not been able to contradict Annexure 22 & 25, which are contemporaneous documents of the year 1981 itself. 14. Thus, it is clear that till 1988 this was the Anjuman Society, which was controlling the management of the School in question. It is no one’s case that this Society abandoned the School in any manner. The case of the private respondents is that the people of the locality ousted the old Managing Committee in 1988 and installed a new Managing Committee. This was noticed and disapproved by the Anjuman Society as no such meeting was authorized by the said Society for change of the management. Respondents are unable to establish as to under what authority they were purporting to change the management. Then realizing that the management had to be through a registered Society, their own case is that in 1991 the new Society Siddique Talimi Anjuman was registered. Then the question is which Society was managing the affairs of the Minority Institutions in between 1988 to 1991. There is no answer from the respondents in this regard. 15. In my view, the answer is that the alleged purported removal of the management in 1988 was wholly unauthorized and without jurisdiction. The Anjuman Society, which had been managing the institution, had neither withdrawn nor ceased to exist and in such situation, it could not be ousted much less by the private respondents. 16. In fairness to the State, record of this case would reveal that various opportunities were given to the State to bring on record materials before this Court to show with whom they were corresponding and with which Society the Board was corresponding including the Examination Board, but the State could not bring materials on record except an affidavit stating and recognizing that it was in deed Anjuman Society, which was managing the School. 17. In view of the two facts as noted above, it can safely be said that the people associated with the new Society i.e. Siddique Talimi Anjuman were usurping the School and its management without following any procedure in this regard. 17. In view of the two facts as noted above, it can safely be said that the people associated with the new Society i.e. Siddique Talimi Anjuman were usurping the School and its management without following any procedure in this regard. No group of individuals can suddenly join and decide to oust a Society and its Managing Committee and replace it by another Society, where specially in circumstances it is not in dispute that the management and control thereof vested in another Society. If there was any problem, it was for the people to take recourse to Civil Court but they could not have got together and without the sanction of the Society changed the management and usurped its control. The State on its part could not then assume jurisdiction to decide the controversy. Such controversies are best left to be decided in a properly constituted suit in accordance with law. In view of Article 30 of the Constitution, State should have stayed away instead of getting involved in the management dispute of a minority institution. 18. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned Annexures 16 and 21 cannot be sustained nor can the interference of the State in the management of the Minority Educational Institutions be sustained. They are, accordingly, quashed. As noticed earlier, by interim order dated 11.02.1999 passed by a Bench of this Court, the old Managing Committee was permitted to continue, which order is made absolute. 19. This writ petition is, thus, allowed with the aforesaid observations.