JUDGMENT The special appeal has arisen from an interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge dated 21 August 2015. The appellants are the petitioners before the learned Single Judge in a writ petition which sought to question the legality of an order dated 26 December 2014 passed by the Regional Level Committee1, Saharanpur determining the electoral college for holding the elections to the Committee of Management of Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Inter College. From the record, it appears that a writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge in order to challenge an order of the District Inspector of Schools2, Shamli dated 7 October 2014 by which 117 members were recognized as valid members of the general body and the names of 107 members who were enrolled in 2000 were discarded. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition observed as follows: “I have considered the respective submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the opinion that the District Inspector of Schools had no occasion to inter into the adjudication of the electoral college at this stage. It is not in dispute that the electoral college was determined by the District Inspector of Schools on 9.12.2010 which has attained finality. The election on the basis of the electoral college dated 9.12.2010 conducted on 16.1.2011 has already been ecognized on 29.1.2011 and, therefore, the petitioner committee, which is an out going committee had the authority to have itself got the elections conducted in accordance with law. The District Inspector of Schools, at this juncture, could not have intervened in the matter.” 2. Consequently, the order of the DIOS dated 7 October 2014 was quashed and set aside. The learned Single Judge directed that the election proceedings may be undertaken in accordance with law and the remedy of any person aggrieved would be to approach the Committee. 3. The Committee passed an order on 26 December 2014 determining the electoral college. Subsequently, elections were held on 7 January 2015 and were recognized on 12 January 2015. The writ petition was sought to be amended by moving an amendment application for bringing on record the subsequent developments and for challenging the consequential holding of elections. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has informed the Court that the amendment application has been allowed. The writ petition was sought to be amended by moving an amendment application for bringing on record the subsequent developments and for challenging the consequential holding of elections. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has informed the Court that the amendment application has been allowed. When the writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge, the ground which was urged was that the Committee had no jurisdiction to pass an order dated 26 December 2014 determining the electoral college. Moreover, it was urged that the power to decide a dispute in regard to the elections to the Committee of Management would only arise when the matter was referred to the Committee by the DIOS in the absence whereof, the order dated 26 December 2014 was without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge while directing the filing of a counter affidavit stayed the operation of the order of the Committee dated 26 December 2014. The appellants have no grievance with this aspect of the matter. However, the appellants are aggrieved by the subsequent direction of the learned Single Judge to the effect the pendency of the writ petition or the interim order passed staying the order of the Committee dated 26 December 2014 would not come in the way of the working of the Committee of management. The submission which is urged is that the second part of the direction is manifestly contrary to and inconsistent with the earlier part. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, we find merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants. The Committee had no jurisdiction to determine the electoral college since its authority would arise only after the declaration of the result of the elections and in the event that a rival claim was set up which required adjudication of a disputed matter. 5. In the present case, there was no reference by the DIOS to the Committee. Ex facie, the order dated 26 December 2014 was without jurisdiction. 6. It was in this view of the matter that the learned Single Judge, to our mind, correctly stayed the order dated 26 December 2014. 5. In the present case, there was no reference by the DIOS to the Committee. Ex facie, the order dated 26 December 2014 was without jurisdiction. 6. It was in this view of the matter that the learned Single Judge, to our mind, correctly stayed the order dated 26 December 2014. However, the latter part of the order by which the learned Single Judge has directed that the stay will not come in the way of the working of the Committee of Management would operate in a manner which is inconsistent with the earlier direction. Once, it has been held that the order of the Committee dated 26 December 2014 is without jurisdiction, necessary consequences would have to flow including in regard to the elections which were held thereafter. 7. Having due regard to this factual position, and during the course of the hearing, we indicated to the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents that instead of keeping the writ petition alive, it would be appropriate and proper if the petition itself is disposed of by setting aside the order of the Committee dated 26 December 2014. 8. The learned Senior Counsel has indicated that the ends of justice would be met if the petition is heard and finally disposed of at this stage by the Division Bench so as to obviate further litigation and uncertainty in the matter. 9. For the reasons which we have indicated, we accordingly allow the special appeal by taking the writ petition on board and by setting aside the order of the Committee dated 26 December 2014. In consequence, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge will no longer survive. Upon the setting aside of the order of the Committee dated 26 December 2014, necessary consequences shall ensue. A copy of this order shall also be placed on the file of the writ petition which has been disposed of. 10. The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.