JUDGMENT : CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:- "i Issue a writ order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 22.05.2025 and order dated 31.05.2025 passed by respondent no. 2, District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to accord the approval/recognition of election dated 23.05.2025 of the Committee of Management of Public Inter College, Kerakat, Jaunpur." Factual Matrix 2. The institution in question, Public Inter College, Kerakat, District Jaunpur, is managed by a registered society known as Public Association, Kerakat. The society is governed by the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the college is subject to the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, together with an approved scheme of administration. 3. As stated, the scheme prescribes that elections of the Committee of Management shall be conducted from amongst the valid General Body members, at the premises of the institution, and under the supervision of an Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur (hereinafter “DIOS”). 4. The first undisputed election of the Committee of Management, according to the materials on record, was held in the year 1991. Elections were subsequently held from time to time. 5. On 26.06.2005, a list of 111 life members of the General Body was filed with the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi. This list of 111 members was registered and accepted as valid and is treated as the last undisputed General Body list. The petitioners rely upon this list as the foundation of their claim, asserting it to be the authentic electoral roll. 6. Controversy began thereafter. In 2008–2009, the then Manager, Shri Shamsher Bahadur Singh, petitioner no. 2 herein, submitted an annual list showing only 29 members. In 2010, an election was purportedly conducted amongst 64 members, i.e., the earlier 29 members along with additional inductees. Objections were raised by one Sheo Nath Ram and by Shri Sant Kumar Singh, respondent no. 3 herein, alleging that the reduction from 111 members to 29, and the subsequent enlargement to 64 by inclusion of new names, was wholly illegal. It was specifically alleged that 31 members had been inducted without authority and that the electoral roll stood vitiated. 7. 3 herein, alleging that the reduction from 111 members to 29, and the subsequent enlargement to 64 by inclusion of new names, was wholly illegal. It was specifically alleged that 31 members had been inducted without authority and that the electoral roll stood vitiated. 7. Complaints were made before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi. By order dated 17.12.2011, the Assistant Registrar recorded that the expulsion of 31 members had been validly carried out and consequently rejected the objections of Sheo Nath Ram and respondent no. 3. 8. Further orders were passed by the Assistant Registrar on 12.12.2012, reiterating that the names removed had not been challenged by the concerned individuals, and therefore the removal stood confirmed. These orders were carried in writ proceedings before this Court, being Writ C No. 8868 of 2012, Writ C No. 36883 of 2012, and thereafter Special Appeal No. 1561 of 2012. 9. Ultimately, Writ C No. 14410 of 2013 was filed, which squarely raises the dispute regarding the 2005 list of 111 members and the alleged illegal induction of 31 members. That writ petition remains pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the controversy over the sanctity of the 2005 list continues to subsist and has not attained finality. 10. Meanwhile, elections were held periodically. On 29.05.2020, an election was conducted and the DIOS, Jaunpur attested the signatures of the Manager on 01.06.2020. This was recognized as the last attested election prior to the present dispute. 11. For the session 2025 – 26, the petitioners submitted their list of the members of the Committee of Management, which is stated to be registered by the Assistant Registrar on 28.04.2025. Shortly thereafter, on 19.05.2025, respondent no. 3, Shri Sant Kumar Singh, filed another list. 12. Faced with these competing lists, the Assistant Registrar issued a notice dated 21.05.2025, calling upon the parties to submit their explanations within fifteen days. The notice records the existence of two rival lists but does not purport to finally adjudicate the dispute. 13. Pending receipt of explanations, the DIOS, who had earlier granted permission to the petitioners on 11.05.2025 to conduct the elections and appointed an Observer on 16.05.2025, passed an order dated 22.05.2025 staying the election that had been scheduled for 23.05.2025. The DIOS recorded that the membership list was disputed and that an election in such circumstances could not proceed. 14. Pending receipt of explanations, the DIOS, who had earlier granted permission to the petitioners on 11.05.2025 to conduct the elections and appointed an Observer on 16.05.2025, passed an order dated 22.05.2025 staying the election that had been scheduled for 23.05.2025. The DIOS recorded that the membership list was disputed and that an election in such circumstances could not proceed. 14. The petitioners’ own pleadings acknowledge that on 22.05.2025, the Station House Officer of Police Station - Kerakat visited the residence of petitioner no. 2 and informed him that the election stood stayed by the DIOS. 15. On the following day, 23.05.2025, when the petitioners sought to proceed with the election at the college premises, it is stated by them that they were prevented from entering the said premise by the police, who cited the stay order. Notwithstanding this, the petitioners proceeded to conduct an election at the residence of petitioner no. 2 on 23.05.2025. Proceedings of this election were drawn and submitted to the DIOS on 27.05.2025. 16. On 31.05.2025, the DIOS passed an order directing single operation of the institution’s bank accounts, placing them under joint signature to ensure continuity of salary disbursement to staff and to prevent administrative deadlock. This was done in exercise of powers under the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. 17. The petitioners, aggrieved, filed the present writ petition challenging the DIOS’ orders dated 22.05.2025 and 31.05.2025 and seeking recognition of the election allegedly held on 23.05.2025. Respondent no. 3 contests the same, asserting that the election was illegal, being held not only in contravention of the stay order but also in violation of various clauses of the approved scheme of administration, which mandates that elections be held at the institution premises under the supervision of the DIOS’ Observer. 18. The entire factual backdrop therefore discloses a continuing chain of disputes: beginning with the undisputed list of 2005, followed by the alleged illegal reduction and induction of members in 2008–2010, the Assistant Registrar’s orders in 2011–2012, the pendency of Writ C No. 14410 of 2013 before a Division Bench, and culminating in the two distinct lists filed in April–May 2025, the Assistant Registrar’s notice dated 21.05.2025, the DIOS’ stay order dated 22.05.2025, the petitioners’ purported election of 23.05.2025 at a private residence, and the subsequent single operation order of 31.05.2025. Submissions 19. Mr. Submissions 19. Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged that the list of the members of the Committee of Management for the year 2025–26 had already been registered by the Assistant Registrar on 28.04.2025. It is contended that once the list was registered, the petitioners were entitled to hold elections and there was no justification for the DIOS to stay the process. 20. It is vehemently submitted that the membership under Section 4 -B of the U.P. Societies Registration Act, 1860 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act, 1860”) has not been decided by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies Evam Chits, Varanasi till date, therefore, right of the petitioners to hold election cannot be withheld till disposal of the membership under Section 4 -B of the Act, 1860, particularly, when the petitioners have fulfilled all three ingredients for valid election: (a) the persons have right to hold election. Here in this case the petitioners are outgoing Committee of Management, therefore, the petitioners have right to conduct election (b) the election has been held amongst the valid members. Here in this case the election was held amongst the valid members who have already participated in the election of 1990 and onward, except dead or few members were excluded and (c) the election was held as per provisions of the scheme of administration. 21. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the instant case, election was held absolutely in accordance with law as per provisions of the scheme of administration. 22. It is further submitted that the election was duly held on 23.05.2025, though at the residence of petitioner no. 2, as the police obstructed the petitioners from entering the college campus. The petitioners’ claim that the election proceedings, having been duly drawn and submitted to the DIOS on 27.05.2025, ought to have been recognised and the signatures of the elected Manager attested. 23. It is also contended that the DIOS acted without jurisdiction and at the behest of respondent no. 3 in issuing the stay order dated 22.05.2025 and the subsequent order of single operation dated 31.05.2025. Thus, it is prayed that the instant petition be allowed and the reliefs be granted as prayed for. 24. Per Contra, Mr. G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 has opposed the present petition and submits that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Thus, it is prayed that the instant petition be allowed and the reliefs be granted as prayed for. 24. Per Contra, Mr. G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 has opposed the present petition and submits that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. It is pointed out that the Assistant Registrar himself recorded the existence of rival lists by his notice dated 21.05.2025, and that the very foundation of the electoral roll is in dispute. 25. It is argued that under Clause 8 of the approved scheme of administration, elections can only be held on the basis of a duly verified and undisputed General Body list. Respondent no. 3 further contends that Clause 9 of the scheme mandates that elections be conducted at the institution premises under the supervision of the DIOS’ Observer, whereas the petitioners admittedly conducted the election at the residence of petitioner no. 2, without the presence of the Observer and in defiance of the stay order dated 22.05.2025. It is therefore urged that the election is illegal and void. 26. It is argued that the District Inspector of Schools is vested with Supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that elections of the Committee of Management of Institution are held strictly in accordance with the approved Scheme of Administration and the statutory provisions. If the foundational requirement of a valid General Body does not exist, the DIOS is legally justified in stopping the election process vide his order dated 22.05.2025. It is further submitted that conducting elections without a valid elected General Body would amount to violation of both- Firstly, the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Secondly, the Scheme of Administration. Such an election would be void ab initio and incapable of recognition in law. 27. In the instant case, learned Senior Counsel vehemently submitted that the petitioners have themselves admitted that a dispute exists with regard to the membership of General Body of the Institution/Society, therefore, according to the provisions of Scheme of Administration of Institution, there is no valid and legal undisputed General Body of the Society/Institution and in absence of a valid and recognized list of members, no lawful election can be conducted. 28. 28. It is vehemently submitted that there is no elected Committee of Management in the Institution, hence, for payment of salary, regularly and timely to the employees of Institution, there is no other option before respondent no.2 except to pass order of single operation dated 31.05.2025 in the Institution. Therefore, it is vehemently submitted that there is no illegality or error in the impugned order. 29. Respondent no. 3 also relies on the pendency of Writ C No. 14410 of 2013 before the Division Bench, wherein the validity of the 2005 list and subsequent inductions is under adjudication, to contend that the matter of membership cannot be decided by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It is lastly submitted that the DIOS acted within jurisdiction in passing the stay order and the order of single operation to safeguard the functioning of the institution and protect the salaries of the staff. Since the dispute regarding the 2005 list is still pending for consideration before the Division Bench and as the Assistant Registrar has yet to decide the rival claims pursuant to the notice dated 21.05.2025, the present writ petition cannot be used as a vehicle to secure recognition of an election held on a disputed electoral roll. Thus, it is prayed that the instant petition may be dismissed being devoid of any merits. Analysis and Conclusion 30. Heard Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prakash Chandra Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Man Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3, Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents and perused the material available on record. 31. Before entering into the merits, it is necessary to recall the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ court does not ordinarily act as a fact-finding forum nor substitute itself for statutory authorities entrusted with decision-making powers. Where matters involve disputed questions of membership, factual inquiry, or appreciation of evidence, the writ court must decline to exercise jurisdiction and leave such issues to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with the statute. 32. In the present case, it is not disputed that the Assistant Registrar has issued a notice dated 21.05.2025 requiring explanations on the rival lists but has not yet passed any final order. 32. In the present case, it is not disputed that the Assistant Registrar has issued a notice dated 21.05.2025 requiring explanations on the rival lists but has not yet passed any final order. Similarly, the DIOS’ intervention by the stay order dated 22.05.2025 and single operation order dated 31.05.2025 were interim administrative steps, not final adjudications. Thus, there is no finality either from the side of the Assistant Registrar or the DIOS. In such circumstances, this Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot pronounce upon the validity of membership or resolve the deeper factual disputes. 33. At the outset, it is also relevant to note the chronology of events, which stands admitted on record. The petitioners’ list is stated to be registered on 28.04.2025. Another list is stated to be filed by respondent no. 3 on 19.05.2025. The Assistant Registrar, faced with these two competing claims, issued a notice on 21.05.2025 requiring explanations. On 22.05.2025, the DIOS passed a specific order staying the election scheduled for 23.05.2025. Notwithstanding this clear stay, the petitioners proceeded to hold an election on 23.05.2025 at the residence of petitioner no. 2. This sequence itself demonstrates that the election was conducted in defiance of a subsisting stay order. Thus, this Court is prima facie of the view that the rival contentions require examination in the light of the statutory scheme and the facts as they stand on record. 34. It is not in dispute that the DIOS passed a stay order on 22.05.2025 restraining the conduct of the election scheduled for 23.05.2025. The petitioners themselves have pleaded that the police authorities informed them of this order on 22.05.2025 and prevented them from entering the institution on 23.05.2025. 35. It is therefore clear that the petitioners were aware of the subsistence of the stay order. The law is settled that any action taken in defiance of a lawful order of a competent authority is void and cannot be recognised. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen , (2010) 11 SCC 557 , held that acts done in contravention of subsisting judicial or administrative orders are a nullity. 36. Applying this principle, the election said to have been held on 23.05.2025, despite the subsistence and communication of the DIOS’ stay order, is illegal and void. 37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen , (2010) 11 SCC 557 , held that acts done in contravention of subsisting judicial or administrative orders are a nullity. 36. Applying this principle, the election said to have been held on 23.05.2025, despite the subsistence and communication of the DIOS’ stay order, is illegal and void. 37. Apart from the stay order, the position brought before this Court, as stated by the petitioners is that the petitioners’ election was held at the private residence of petitioner no. 2, without the presence of the Observer. 38. Such an election, in the opinion of this Court, is in the teeth of the scheme of administration itself, and on this ground also it cannot be recognised. Further, the Assistant Registrar’s notice dated 21.05.2025 records the existence of distinct rival lists. Thus, there is a bona fide dispute as to the membership of the General Body. The aforementioned scheme requires that elections must be held only on the basis of a validly verified General Body list. 39. Until the Assistant Registrar examines and verifies the rival lists, no valid electoral college exists upon which an election can be founded. The contention of the petitioners that the registration of their list on 28.04.2025 by itself concludes the matter, cannot be accepted. Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 requires annual filing of lists but does not provide that mere registration conclusively determines membership disputes. That being said, this Court is of the view that being a writ Court, it cannot become a forum that deals with appreciation of facts and evidence, that too when the competent authority has itself not made any final decision yet. 40. Therefore, in view of the preceding paragraph, in the instant matter, the DIOS, in the face of a disputed electoral roll and conflicting claims, acted within his powers in staying the election on 22.05.2025. 41. Furthermore, Under Section 5 of the U.P. High Schools & Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971, the DIOS is empowered to ensure payment of salaries and to take necessary administrative measures. The order dated 31.05.2025 directing single operation of accounts is an interim protective measure to safeguard the financial stability of the institution. 42. Furthermore, Under Section 5 of the U.P. High Schools & Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971, the DIOS is empowered to ensure payment of salaries and to take necessary administrative measures. The order dated 31.05.2025 directing single operation of accounts is an interim protective measure to safeguard the financial stability of the institution. 42. It is also a relevant circumstance that the larger controversy relating to the 2005 list of 111 members and the alleged induction of 31 members is sub judice before a Division Bench in Writ C No. 14410 of 2013. This pending litigation casts a shadow over the legitimacy of any election sought to be held during its pendency. This reinforces the conclusion that disputed questions of membership cannot be adjudicated in the present writ proceedings. 43. Thus, both on account of violation of the stay order, and on account of breach of the scheme of administration, the election of 23.05.2025 cannot be recognised. 44. In light of the foregoing facts and discussions, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed with the following directions: (i) The election alleged to have been held on 23.05.2025 at the residence of petitioner no. 2 is illegal and void, having been conducted in contravention of the stay order dated 22.05.2025. (ii) The DIOS’ order dated 22.05.2025 staying the election, and the order dated 31.05.2025 directing single operation of accounts, were lawful administrative measures taken in the interest of the institution and are upheld. (iii) The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi is directed to examine the rival lists submitted by the petitioners and respondent no. 3, verify the actual venue of the election, and determine the valid membership list in accordance with the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the rules made thereunder, and the approved scheme of administration. The same shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order. (iv) Upon such determination, the Assistant Registrar shall pass appropriate directions for holding a fresh election strictly in accordance with the verified list and the scheme and with the duly appointed Observer. The same shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order. (iv) Upon such determination, the Assistant Registrar shall pass appropriate directions for holding a fresh election strictly in accordance with the verified list and the scheme and with the duly appointed Observer. (v) Until such time, the stay order dated 22.05.2025 and the order of single operation passed by the DIOS on 31.05.2025 shall continue to be in operation, unless any such other order is passed by any competent authority. 45. For the above reasons and observations, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 46. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.