JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner No. 1 in this writ petition is a Committee of Management of a recognised educational institution, namely, Krishak Inter College, Kothi Khidmatpur, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar, whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 claim themselves to be Manager and President of the Committee of Management respectively. They have preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25th March, 2011 passed by the Regional Level Committee, the respondent No. 2, whereby it has recognised the election held by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on 02nd January, 2011, and also the consequential order dated 28th March, 2011 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, the respondent No. 4, attesting the signature of Sri Samar Pal Singh as Manager of the Institution. 2. The essential facts are that Krishak Educational Society, Kothi Khidmatpur, Jyotiba Phule Nagar (for short, “the Society”) is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act 21 of 1860) (for short, “the Act, 1860”). It has established an educational institution, namely, Krishak Inter College, Kothi Khidmatpur, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar (for short, “the Institution”). In the Institution education is imparted upto the level of Standard -XII. The Institution is recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh (for short, “the Board”). It receives aid out of the State fund. The affairs of the Institution are administered by a Committee of Management in terms of the Scheme of Administration approved under Section 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Institution is governed under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. 3. It is a common ground that the last undisputed election of Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 11th December, 2005, wherein respondent No. 6 Sri Salag Singh was elected as Manager and one Sri Jagpal Singh was elected as President. Said election, which was held on the basis of electoral roll consisting of 28 members, was recognised by the Regional Level Committee vide its order dated 29/30th December, 2005. Consequent upon, the District Inspector of Schools attested the signature of Sri Salag Singh as Manager vide order dated 03rd January, 2006. 4. Said election, which was held on the basis of electoral roll consisting of 28 members, was recognised by the Regional Level Committee vide its order dated 29/30th December, 2005. Consequent upon, the District Inspector of Schools attested the signature of Sri Salag Singh as Manager vide order dated 03rd January, 2006. 4. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Regional Level Committee dated 29/30th December, 2005, a writ petition, being Writ-C No. 59654 of 2006 (Krishak Educational Society, Kothi Khidmatpur, Jyotiba Phule Nagar and others v. Government of State of U.P. and others) was filed by 8 members, who claim themselves to be Life Members of the Society. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in this writ petition are also petitioners in that writ petition. In the said writ petition no interim order was passed by this Court. 5. Under the Scheme of Administration the term of the Committee of Management is five years. Accordingly, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 sent a communication to the office of the District Inspector of Schools seeking his permission to hold fresh election. It is stated that in response thereto the District Inspector of Schools vide a communication dated 08th January, 2010 permitted the Committee of Management to hold the election. On 21st December, 2010 a meeting of the General Body was held, wherein the election programme was finalized and 02nd January, 2011 was fixed for election. The Committee of Management requested the District Inspector of Schools to send an Observer to be present in the election. However, the District Inspector of Schools did not send the Observer as he had received representation by some persons who alleged themselves to be Life Members of the Society. The Committee of Management went ahead and held the election on 02nd January, 2011. In the said election the respondent No. 5 Sri Samar Pal Singh was elected as Manager and Sri Salag Singh, the respondent No. 6, was elected as President. 6. From the records it transpires that some of the Members made a representation/complaint that election may not be held before determination of the electoral roll. For the said reason, the District Inspector of Schools sent a communication to the Committee of Management not to hold the election. 6. From the records it transpires that some of the Members made a representation/complaint that election may not be held before determination of the electoral roll. For the said reason, the District Inspector of Schools sent a communication to the Committee of Management not to hold the election. After receiving the said communication, the Committee of Management, respondent No. 5, filed an objection that once the election process was initiated, the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to interrupt the election process. 7. On 07th January, 2011 the Committee of Management, the respondent No. 5, sent the election papers to the office of the District Inspector of Schools for its recognition. In the meantime, the District Inspector of Schools received two more claims of the rival elections; one, on 15th January, 2011 sent by Sri Rajveer Singh and Sri Khem Pal Singh; and, the other on 17th January, 2011 by Sri Satyaveer Singh and Sri Veer Singh, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 2. All the papers were forwarded to the Regional Level Committee to decide the validity of the elections claimed by three different factions. 8. The Regional Level Committee after affording opportunity to all the three factions passed the impugned order dated 25th March, 2011, whereby it has decided the matter relating to the elections submitted by all the three factions. The Regional Level Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, Sri Veer Singh and Sri Satyaveer Singh on the ground that their election has not been held by the valid members of the General Body. The election of Sri Rajveer Singh and Sri Khem Pal Singh has also been rejected on the ground that the meeting, wherein decision was taken by them to hold the election, was not convened by the outgoing Committee and they had no right to hold the election as they were not valid Members. The Regional Level Committee has recognised the election of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that they are in effective control of the Institution and their previous election was valid and recognition was granted to it. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Regional Level Committee dated 25th March, 2011, the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 28th March, 2011 attested the signature of Sri Samar Pal Singh, respondent No. 5, as Manager of the Institution. 9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Regional Level Committee dated 25th March, 2011, the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 28th March, 2011 attested the signature of Sri Samar Pal Singh, respondent No. 5, as Manager of the Institution. 9. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders dated 25th March, 2011 and 28th March, 2011. 10. The same impugned orders have also been challenged by the faction of Sri Khem Pal Singh and Sri Rajveer Singh by a writ petition, Writ-C No. 24601 of 2011 (Committee of Management, Krishak Inter College, Kothi Khidmatpur, Jyotiba Phule Nagar and others v. State of U.P. and others). 11. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that the Regional Level Committee vide its order dated 30th December, 2005 had recognised the election held on 11th December, 2005, wherein Sri Salag Singh, the respondent No. 6, was elected as Manager and Sri Jagpal Singh was elected as President. Said election was held by an electoral roll consisting of 28 members and the said Committee of Management has completed its term. The aforesaid election of 2005 was challenged in this Court by means of Writ-C No. 59654 of 2006, as referred above, but no interim order was granted therein. It is further stated that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are not even ordinary members of the General Body and the Regional Level Committee has recorded this finding in the impugned order and in the pleadings of the writ petition said finding has not been challenged nor any evidence has been filed by the petitioners to establish their case. It is also stated that in the year 1994 the Committee of Management of the Institution had been superseded by the Joint Director of Education and the Authorised Controller was appointed. The Authorised Controller had enrolled some members. The petitioners are among them. It is stated that the Authorised Controller has got no authority to enrol new members. He prepared a list of 67 members in the year 1996, out of which only 34 members were genuine members. It is further averred by the respondent Nos. The Authorised Controller had enrolled some members. The petitioners are among them. It is stated that the Authorised Controller has got no authority to enrol new members. He prepared a list of 67 members in the year 1996, out of which only 34 members were genuine members. It is further averred by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 that the election of Committee of Management of the Institution was held in the year 2000 and again in the year 2005 but the newly enrolled members by the Authorised Controller were not permitted to participate in the election of 2000 and 2005. Both the elections were recognised by the Regional Level Committee. The petitioners did not participate in either of the elections and thus, the previous election was held on the basis of list of 28 members only. It is stated that the petitioners again at the time of fresh election made a baseless objection before the District Inspector of Schools in respect of the electoral roll, which was already finalized earlier and on the basis of said electoral roll the election of 2005 was held and duly recognised by the Regional Level Committee. For the said reasons, the District Inspector of Schools had no authority to interfere in the process of election. 12. I have heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri K.B. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, and learned Standing Counsel for the State functionaries. 13. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that on the representation made by the petitioners the District Inspector of Schools had restrained the Committee of Management from holding the election; the District Inspector of Schools did not appoint the Observer; and, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 ignoring the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 24th December, 2010 held the election, therefore, said election cannot be said to be a valid election. Sri Gajendra Pratap has placed reliance upon a judgement of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and others v. District Inspector of Schools, Banda and others, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 497. He further submits that the Regional Level Committee has not recorded any finding with regard to validity of the election of respondent Nos. Sri Gajendra Pratap has placed reliance upon a judgement of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and others v. District Inspector of Schools, Banda and others, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 497. He further submits that the Regional Level Committee has not recorded any finding with regard to validity of the election of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and without recording any reason has accepted the election of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 only on the ground that they are office-bearers of the outgoing Committee of Management. Lastly he urged that the Regional Level Committee has not considered the effect of ignoring the order of the District Inspector of Schools by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 wherein the District Inspector of Schools had clearly directed the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 not to hold the election. 14. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, submits that admittedly the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were Members of outgoing Committee of Management as their election was recognised by the Regional Level Committee vide its order dated 30th December, 2005 and the said election was challenged by some of the life members in this Court but no interim order was granted. He further submits that the District Inspector of Schools had illegally issued the direction not to hold the election and refused to appoint the Observer. Sri Singh has drawn the attention of the Court to the findings of the Regional Level Committee, wherein it has been held that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are not Members of the General Body. He has also invited the attention of the Court to the pleadings of the writ petition that said findings have not been challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition nor any evidence has been brought on record to establish that they are members of the General Body. 15. Sri Singh further submitted that the District Inspector of Schools had no authority to restrain the outgoing Committee of Management from holding fresh election, therefore, once the election process was started, the District Inspector of Schools was not justified in interfering with the election process. Lastly he urged that Regional Level Committee has rightly recognised the respondent No. 5, who was in effective control of the Institution. 16. Lastly he urged that Regional Level Committee has rightly recognised the respondent No. 5, who was in effective control of the Institution. 16. With regard to the writ petition filed by the life members of Institution, Sri Singh has relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Rajveer Singh v. The State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No. 1380 of 2008, decided on 07th September, 2010, wherein the Division Bench has held that the election of the Committee of Management, which is recognised by the appropriate authority, cannot be challenged by the Life Members as they have not set up rival claim. For the said reason, the writ petition filed by Life Members is not maintainable. 17. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 18. The last undisputed election was held on 11th December, 2005, wherein respondent No. 6 Sri Salag Singh was elected as Manager and one Sri Jagpal Singh was elected as President. Said election was recognised by the Regional Level Committee vide order dated 30th December, 2005 and signature of Sri Salag Singh was attested as Manager of the Institution by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 03rd January, 2006. 19. The present dispute arose after the term of the said Committee of Management was over and three rival factions set up different elections. The Principal of the Institution, who is ex-officio Member of the Committee of Management, and other ex-officio Members in their communication dated 28th February, 2011 have apprised the educational authorities that the election dated 02nd January, 2011 was held in their presence, wherein respondent No. 6 was elected as President and one Sri Samar Pal Singh was elected as Manager. 20. Relevant it would be to mention that ex-President of the recognised Committee of Management Sri Jagpal Singh had also stated on notary affidavit that he had not made any complaint dated 01st March, 2011 and the election of the Committee of Management was held on 02nd January, 2011. The petitioners claim to have held the election on 04th January, 2011 but the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners could not demonstrate from the record that the meeting, wherein decision to hold the election was taken, was properly convened in terms of the Scheme of Administration. The petitioners claim to have held the election on 04th January, 2011 but the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners could not demonstrate from the record that the meeting, wherein decision to hold the election was taken, was properly convened in terms of the Scheme of Administration. If the meeting is not convened by the proper person and proper procedure has not been followed, such meeting does not have any sanctity in the eye of law. The Regional Level Committee has recorded a finding that the petitioner No. 2 has only orally stated that his election was held on 04th January, 2011 and he has also stated that except this fact he has nothing to say. The aforesaid observation of the Regional Level Committee has not been disputed by the petitioners in the writ petition. There is no pleading in the writ petition that said recital is incorrect. Therefore, there is no error in the order of the Regional Level Committee in respect of the said finding. 21. The submission of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that in view of the fact that there was restraint order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the election is illegal, hardly merit acceptance for the reasons; firstly, this plea was not raised before the Regional Level Committee which is apparent from the aforesaid recital contained in the order of the Regional Level Committee; and, secondly, the order of the District Inspector of Schools was an administrative order and if in totality of the circumstances it is found that the election of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was held to be valid on other grounds, then only on the ground of violation of the order of the District Inspector of Schools said election cannot be set aside at the instance of the persons whose elections have been held to be illegal by the Regional Level Committee on the valid grounds. 22. So far as the judgement of Ghanshyam Mishra (supra), as relied upon by Sri Gajendra Pratap, is concerned, the facts of the said case are distinguishable. 22. So far as the judgement of Ghanshyam Mishra (supra), as relied upon by Sri Gajendra Pratap, is concerned, the facts of the said case are distinguishable. In the said case, date of the election was fixed on 23rd July, 1991 but on 22nd July, 1991 the District Inspector of Schools issued a direction to the Returning Officer to postpone the election and accordingly, a notice to the said effect was sent to the Authorized Controller and Principal of the College to the voters. In spite of the said notice the Returning Officer went ahead and held the election. Pertinently, Clause 9 (4) of the Scheme of Administration of the institution (therein) empowered the District Inspector of Schools to send an Observer to conduct the election. Admittedly, in the said case the District Inspector of Schools did not send any Observer. In view of the said facts, the District Inspector of Schools refused to recognise the election. When said order of the District Inspector of Schools was challenged, this Court remanded the matter to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order. On remand, the District Inspector of Schools had recognised the said election. The order of District Inspector of Schools was again challenged before this Court. This Court set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools recognising the election and observed that the election has been held in contravention of Clause 9(4) of the Scheme of Administration and on overall facts and circumstances of the case the Court directed to hold fresh election. However, the Court has not laid down the law that the directions of the District Inspector of Schools in all the cases are mandatory and if any election is held contrary to the direction of the District Inspector of Schools, the election shall be illegal. 23. In the instant case, there is no corresponding clause in the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. Moreover, the District Inspector of Schools was one of the Members of the Regional Level Committee, which has accepted the election of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. In view of the above, the aforesaid judgement as relied upon by Sri Gajendra Pratap is not applicable in the present case. 24. Before concluding I deem it appropriate to notice the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Pt. 5 and 6. In view of the above, the aforesaid judgement as relied upon by Sri Gajendra Pratap is not applicable in the present case. 24. Before concluding I deem it appropriate to notice the view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College, Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur and another v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and others, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 85 . The Full Bench answered the question regarding jurisdiction of Joint Director (Now Regional Committee) and the relevance of effective control in the following terms: “31. We find that there may be a variety of circumstances, in which the claims are raised before the Regional Deputy Director of Education. It is also true that the enquiry held by him is summary in nature and that his decision is subject to the directions of the Court of competent jurisdiction. We, however, cannot permit a situation where a group of persons may take over the control over the funds, administration and income of its properties, without a claim based on valid elections. The State Government spends a large amount of money towards grants to the educational institutions and thus there are chances of unauthorised persons taking over the control over the institution by illegality, deceit and/or force. Such persons, in our opinion, shall not be allowed to deal with the Government funds. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, therefore, in holding the enquiry about the actual control of the affairs under Section 16-A(7) is hence required to go into the validity of the elections incidentally, and to find out whether the persons claiming control have been validly elected. 32. **** **** **** 33. The word ‘actual’ is defined in Stroud’s Dictionary as follows: “Actual.— (1) The word “actual” does not, usually, advance the meaning. Speaking generally a thing is not more itself because it is spoken of as “actual” nor is an act more done or enjoined because, it is void, or required, to be “actually” done. Thus, the phrase “actual seizure” in Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856 (c.97) means no more than “seizure” (Gladstone v. Padwick, LR 6 Ex. 203), See Seizure. Speaking generally a thing is not more itself because it is spoken of as “actual” nor is an act more done or enjoined because, it is void, or required, to be “actually” done. Thus, the phrase “actual seizure” in Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856 (c.97) means no more than “seizure” (Gladstone v. Padwick, LR 6 Ex. 203), See Seizure. (2) But where word has a constructive legal meaning not completely corresponding to the fact it indicates, then the addition of “actual” will intensify that word, so that it will not be fully satisfied by such legal meaning (see R. v. St. Nicholas, Rochester, 3 LJMC 45).” 34. In Words and Phrases Permanent Edition V. II the word ‘actual’ has been referred to mean ‘real’, as opposed to nominal, it has been defined as something real as opposed to constructive and speculative, something existing in act, fact and reality. 35. Control is a comprehensive term. Ordinarily it means the powers to govern, dominate, direct and supervise in some respect the conduct of another, the extent and degree of dominion depending upon the circumstances of the particular case. Where the enquiry is with regard to ‘actual control’ and the statute prescribes the method of the enquiry and the factors to be considered in determination of the dispute, the authority vested with the powers to decide the question must confine its powers to the relevant factors, keeping in view the object and purpose of such determination. We find that the purpose of determination under Section 16-A (7), is to find out as to who, prima facie, is entitled to manage and administer the educational institution. The ‘Scheme of Administration’ provides for the procedure for constituting the Committee of Management by periodical elections. It also provides for qualification and disqualification of the members and office-bearers and the terms of the office and the procedure to call and to conduct the meetings. In our view, the Deputy Director of Education in such matter must investigate about the validity of the election of the office-bearers. This enquiry, however, is to be summary in nature and is subject to the final decision of the Court of competent jurisdiction.” 25. What emerges from the above mentioned case is that in the matter of educational institutions the effective control is one of the important factors to recognise the Committee of Management. This enquiry, however, is to be summary in nature and is subject to the final decision of the Court of competent jurisdiction.” 25. What emerges from the above mentioned case is that in the matter of educational institutions the effective control is one of the important factors to recognise the Committee of Management. Of course, an effective control of a rank outsider, who has gained it by extraneous reasons, cannot be accepted. There should be evidence to show that he is valid member and his election has been held in accordance with the procedure provided under the Scheme of Administration/bye-laws of the Society. 26. Regard being had to the fact that the words ‘actual control of the institution’ find place under Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Regional Level Committee, which is headed by the Joint Director of Education has to consider objectively that which of the faction had effective control over the affairs of the Institution. It has also to take care that rank outsiders may not have the control of the Management on the basis of fake documents. In case one of the claimant is outgoing Committee then the task of the Joint Director of Education/Regional Level Committee is easier. In that event it has to find out only whether its election was in terms of the Scheme of Administration and whether the newly enrolled members, who have participated in the election, were duly enrolled in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme of Administration. If the outgoing office-bearers before completing their term have enrolled the members contrary to the provision of the Scheme of Administration only to control the affairs of the institution on the basis of illegally enrolled members, the Regional Level Committee can go into the fact whether those members have been duly enrolled or not. To reach the said conclusion it can direct the office-bearers to produce the agenda book, receipts, minutes of the proceedings, etc. which can, prima facie, satisfy it about the validity of the enrolment of the members. The valid electoral roll is one of the essence of the valid election. 27. To reach the said conclusion it can direct the office-bearers to produce the agenda book, receipts, minutes of the proceedings, etc. which can, prima facie, satisfy it about the validity of the enrolment of the members. The valid electoral roll is one of the essence of the valid election. 27. Suffice, it would be to mention that if the election of office-bearers of the outgoing Committee of Management is challenged by a rival faction, then said faction has to satisfy the Regional Level Committee that the meeting, in which the election was held, was convened by an appropriate person and strictly in terms of the procedure laid down in the Scheme of Administration or the bye-laws, as the case may be. It is a trite law that the Regional Level Committee, in the case of educational institution, and the Prescribed Authority, under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, decide the matter in summary manner. They are quasi-judicial body and the decision given by them is quasi-judicial decision. Therefore, their decision is subject to the decision of the Court of competent jurisdiction. 28. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the findings recorded by the Regional Level Committee do not suffer from any error and as such, the impugned orders do not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 29. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 30. No order as to costs. —————