JUDGMENT : 1. This special appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition i.e. Misc. Single No. 21617 of 2020. 2. The appellants herein were arrayed as opposite party nos. 5, 6 and 7. The appellant no. 3 herein is the Principal of the institution. Before the learned Single Judge, two orders were under challenge. First was the order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the District Minority Welfare Officer under Rule 12(5) of U.P. Private Arbi and Farsi Madarsa Administration and Service Regulation 2016 by which District Minority Welfare Officer had made an arrangement for ensuring timely payment of salary to the Teachers and employees of the opposite party no. 5, who was the petitioner before the writ Court. The other order dated 05.02.2020 was passed after the opposite party no. 5 herein had moved an application before the said Officer stating inter alia that he had not been heard and order dated 26.12.2019 was not justified, whereupon, the order dated 05.02.2020 was passed. The writ petition of the opposite party no. 5 has been allowed by the learned Single Judge on the first day without issuing notice to the opposite parties no. 5, 6 and 7. While allowing the writ petition learned Single Judge has recorded a prima facie satisfaction that the District Minority Welfare Officer could not have passed orders impugned without recording a satisfaction that the salary to the Teachers and employees was not being paid because of dispute relating to the management of the college. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 05.02.2020 and 26.12.2019 were set aside giving liberty to the District Minority Welfare Officer to pass afresh order under Rule 12(5) of Regulations of 2016 after giving notice to the petitioners and after arriving at an objective satisfaction that salary and other dues of teachers and staff of the institution have not been paid for the past several months. Furthermore, after this learned Single Judge has proceeded to allow the O.P. No. 5 herein i.e. petitioner before the writ court to continue to work as Manager even though Committee of Management tenure expired on 17.112019 till hearing is concluded by the Deputy Registrar. Furthermore, after this learned Single Judge has proceeded to allow the O.P. No. 5 herein i.e. petitioner before the writ court to continue to work as Manager even though Committee of Management tenure expired on 17.112019 till hearing is concluded by the Deputy Registrar. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar Versus District Registrar (G), Kozhikode and others; 2004 (11) SCC 247 to support its decision. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Shri G.C. Verma is firstly that appellants herein were arrayed as O.P. No. 5, 6 and 7, therefore, the writ petition could not be allowed without issuing notice to them. Secondly, he says that in the order dated 05.02.2020, there is a mention about various illegal appointments made by the O.P. No. 5 herein as also attempt to pay salary to them. Now as a consequence of quashing of the said order all these illegalities would get legalised. Thirdly, he says that the order of the District Minority Welfare Officer mentioned two facts, Firstly, about a dispute relating to management of the institution in question on account of which the salary for the past few months was not being paid to the Teachers and the Employees and secondly, he has clearly mentioned that the salary for the past several months has not been paid to the Teachers and employees which is sine qua non for exercise of power under Rule 12(5) of the Regulations 2016 but the learned Single Judge failed to notice this second recital in the impugned order. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not place the order correctly before the learned Single Judge. He also says that the dispute relating to management is one of the reasons for non payment of salary but even independent of the said dispute, the fact of the matter as is borne out from the order of the District Minority Welfare Officer is that salary was not being paid to the Teachers and the employees for the past several months, therefore, the burden was upon the O.P. NO. 5 i.e. petitioner before the writ Court to show from the pleadings that the said recital was incorrect and thereafter satisfy the Court on this count, however, this was not done. 4. 5 i.e. petitioner before the writ Court to show from the pleadings that the said recital was incorrect and thereafter satisfy the Court on this count, however, this was not done. 4. On the other hand, Pandit S Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. NO. 5 has contended that in fact the Registrar of the Society passed the order dated 13.11.2019 stopping the payment of salary to the Teachers and employees of the institution on account of dispute relating to the management with respect to appointments. Therefore, the District Minority Welfare Officer could not have taken this aspect into consideration and could not have held the management responsible. However, on being asked as to whether this order was under challenge before the writ court, learned counsel submits that at that time his client was not aware of this order. Moreover, it is also to be seen that this order was passed in November 2019, whereas the order of the District Minority Welfare Officer dated 26.12.2019 refers to non payment of salary for the past few months i.e. since prior to November, 2019. 5. The other point argued by Pandit S. Chandra is that the District Minority Welfare Officer passed the order which was impugned before the writ Court without any notice to the petitioner. In response to which counsel for the appellants herein submits that after passing of the order on an application being submitted by O.P. No. 5 & 6 it was heard and another order dated 05.02.2020 which was also impugned was passed, therefore, for all practical purpose it can not be said that there was denial of principles of natural justice and opportunity of hearing. 6. Pandit S. Chandra sought to raise various other issues also, however, considering the order which we propose to pass it is not necessary to go into the merits of the issues involved in the writ petition filed by the O.P. NO. 5 and 6. 7. We are of the opinion that once the petitioner/respondent no. 5 & 6 had impleaded O.P. Nos. 5, 6 and 7 who are the appellants before us as opposite party, then the writ court should not have allowed the writ petition without issuing notice to them unless it had given reasons as to why it was doing so without issuing notice or disbursing the notice to them. 5 & 6 had impleaded O.P. Nos. 5, 6 and 7 who are the appellants before us as opposite party, then the writ court should not have allowed the writ petition without issuing notice to them unless it had given reasons as to why it was doing so without issuing notice or disbursing the notice to them. In this context, it is relevant to mention that rightly or wrongly there is recital in the order passed by the District Minority Welfare Officer dated 26.12.2019 that the salary of the teachers and employees was not being paid for the past months, therefore, once there was such recital, the burden was upon the O.P. NO. 5 and 6, who were the petitioners before the writ court to satisfy the court at least prima facie that this recital was factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. 8. We asked Pandit S Chandra to demonstrate from the pleadings any specific averment therein that salary was being paid timely for the past several months immediately before passing of the order dated 26.12.2019 but, as of now, he could not show any such specific pleadings, instead, he invited our attention to paragraph 3 and 23 of the writ petition contents of which speak for themselves. We do not express any further opinion in the matter for the reasons which would be apparent from the order which we propose to pass hereinafter. Suffice to say, learned single Judge would have to see this aspect of the matter. 9. As regards reliance placed before the learned single Judge upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar (Supra), we have perused the said judgment. It was pertaining to a dispute relating to Society whereas the subject matter before the learned Single Judge was as to the validity of the orders passed by the District Minority Welfare Officer pertaining to payment of salary to the Teachers and employees by way of single hand operation and also subsequent order in the same context but mentioning certain other facts also. The dispute of Society was not there before the learned single Judge, therefore, reference to the said decision in the context of the case at hand does not appear to be germane to the controversy involved. 10. The dispute of Society was not there before the learned single Judge, therefore, reference to the said decision in the context of the case at hand does not appear to be germane to the controversy involved. 10. We may also point out that merely because an order of single hand operation has been passed, subject of course to its validity being considered by the writ court, it does not mean that who ever is entitled to manage the institution seizes from managing such institution. All that the said order does is that salary bill will not be routed through the Manager or the Management, instead, the Principal will straightway send the same to the District Minority Welfare Officer who shall pass requisite orders therein, meaning thereby, this order has been passed only to ensure timely payment of salary to the Teachers and employees. Of course, if the Managing Committee is validly elected and entitled to continue and the order of single hand operation is otherwise not sustainable in law then it would certainly impinge the rights of such management and this aspect would be open for consideration before the learned single Judge. 11. As regards the direction of the learned single Judge for continuance of the O.P. No. 5 and 6 as Manager, even though the tenure of the Committee of Management has expired on 17.11.2019 as there is a dispute in this regard as to who is entitled to continue as Manager, we are of the opinion this direction could not have been issued certainly not without hearing the affected parties. Therefore, in view of all the reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment dated 23.11.2020 passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside, however, without prejudice to the rights of the concerned parties before the writ court keeping it open for the writ Court to consider all the relevant issues afresh after hearing the concerned parties. 12. The appellant who are present before this Court shall now appear before the writ Court and the matter shall be heard on the next date on admission and interim relief. 13. All pleas would be open for consideration by the learned Single Judge. 14. Writ petition no. i.e. Misc. Single No. 21617 of 2020 shall now be posted before the writ Court on 18th January, 2021 as fresh. 13. All pleas would be open for consideration by the learned Single Judge. 14. Writ petition no. i.e. Misc. Single No. 21617 of 2020 shall now be posted before the writ Court on 18th January, 2021 as fresh. No adjournment shall be asked by either of the parties on the date fixed. 15. With these observation, this special appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.