JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Adarsh Inter College, Narhi in district Ballia is a duly recognized institution imparting education upto Intermediate level but receives grant from the State only upto High School Level. The affairs of the institution are managed in accordance with a duly approved Scheme of Administration. The last undisputed election of the Committee of Management was held on 25.8.1997 wherein Shri H.N. Rai was elected Manager and Shri C.M. Rai as Deputy Manager. On the expiry of the term, an alleged election was again held on 25.9.2000 wherein Shri Kaushlesh Rai was elected as President while Shri C.M. Rai was elected as Manager. As Shri H.N. Rai also claimed his own election, the District Inspector of Schools finding rival claimants, referred the matter to the Joint Director of Education under Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The Joint Director vide his order dated 29.9.2001 up held the claim of Shri C.M. Rai in pursuance whereof his signatures were attested on 1.10.2001. Shri H.N. Rai challenged the aforesaid decision in writ petition No. 3139 of 2001 before the Lucknow Bench and obtained an order dated 29.10.2001 staying the operation of the order of the Joint Director dated 29.9.2001. The learned Single Judge further directed the District Inspector of Schools to forward all papers regarding the elections to the Director of Secondary Education Lucknow who was to consider the dispute between the rival committees and was to pronounce his verdict within two months. It further directed that the District Magistrate or his nominee shall look after day to day functioning of the institution. Shri C.M. Rai preferred Special Appeal No. 440 of 2001 wherein the Division Bench vide its order dated 24.11.2001 stayed the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.10.2001. This order of the Special Appellate Bench was challenged by Shri H.N. Rai before the Apex Court, which directed both, the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge, to dispose off the petition expeditiously. In pursuance of the orders of the Apex Court, the Special Appeal no 440 of 2001 was finally disposed off on 18.11.2002 with the hope that the learned Single Judge will decide the writ petition itself at an early date and the interim order was directed to continue only for four weeks. It appears that the writ petition is still pending and has not been finally disposed off and the order dated 29.9 2001 of the learned Single Judge remains in operation. Meanwhile, the term again came to expire and as such Shri C.M. Rai, claiming to be in effective control of the affairs of the institution sought permission of the District Inspector of Schools to hold the elections who vide his order dated 15.6.2004 permitted them to hold the elections and also to notify the programme. This permission of the District Inspector of Schools was again challenged by Shri H.N. Rai in wit petition no 3528 of 2004 before the Lucknow Bench. This writ petition was finally disposed off vide a detailed order dated 13.8.2004 with a direction that the election should be conducted under the supervision of the District Magistrate, Ballia or any officer authorized by him but not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate. It appears that before the order could be served on the District Inspector of Schools, the elections as scheduled were held on 14.8.2004 wherein Shri C.M. Rai was elected as the Manager. The petitioner No. 2 also raised his claim stating that ho had been elected as Manager of the Institution and, thus, the District Inspector of Schools again referred the matter as two rival committees had been formed to the Regional Committee under Section 16-A (7) of the Act. The claim of Shri C.M. Rai was accepted by the Committee vide its order dated 15.9.2004, which is impugned in the present petition.
3. Shri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable because neither the petitioner No. (sic) is a recognized Committee of Management nor petitioner No. 2 is the Manager thereof. It is not denied that the petitioner No. 2 had raised a claim of being the Manager of the Committee of Management and the claim has also been adjudicated upon by the Joint Director of Education, who, though has rejected his claim but on this ground it cannot be said that the petition is not maintainable. Further, it is not denied that the petitioner No. 2 is at least a member of the general body of the society, thus, suffice it to say that the petitioner No. 2 is not a stranger to the dispute. Thus, the preliminary objection is hereby overruled.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has raised several arguments but for the view that I am going to take, it would not be necessary to deal with all the arguments.
5. He has urged that in view of the order dated 13.3.2004 passed in writ petition No. 3528 of 2004, the election held under the supervision of the District Inspector of Schools was void being against the express direction of this court. To test this argument it would be necessary to take note of the operative portion of the order dated 13.8.2004, which is quoted below:
"Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools that the election, which is going to be held in compliance of the annexure 5, letter dated 15.6.2004, shall be conducted within the supervision of the District Magistrate, Ballia either himself or any officer authorized by the District Magistrate, Ballia not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate, Ballia. On production of this copy the District Inspector of Schools shall make a request to the District Magistrate accordingly."
6. It is admitted to the contesting respondent that the election, which was held on 14.8.2004 was in pursuance of the letter dated 15.6.2004 and was conducted by the District Inspector of Schools and not by the District Magistrate. For the purposes of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges, (payment of salary of teachers and other employees) Act, 1971 any election of the Committee of Management of any recognized and aided institution would not be effective until and unless the signatures are attested by the District Inspector of Schools. It is admitted to the state, respondents that the order of the writ court was served on the District Inspector of Schools on 16.8.2004 i.e. before the attestation of the signature and also before the decision of the Joint Director. From the record, it is apparent that 14.8.2004 was the date fixed for withdrawal of nominations but since there was no contest, it is urged by the counsel for the respondent that, the election became final. This has also been held by the Joint Director in his impugned order stating that since the elections had already been held on 14.8.2004 the order of this court dated 13.8.2004 could not be complied, though it further held that the result would be subject to further orders passed therein. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent and so also the stand taken by the Joint Director of Education is against the spirit of the order dated 13.8.2004 passed by this court. The election for the purposes of Society Registration Act or for any of the law could be said to have been completed on 14.8.2004 but, as observed hereinabove, the election would not be completed till the signatures are attested so far as Payment of Salary Act and the U.P. Intermediate Education Act are concerned. The dispute in this writ petition is as to which of the two Committee of Managements are to be allowed to manage the affairs of the institution both administratively and financially and, therefore, the attestation of the signatures of the management becomes crucial. Therefore, in my opinion, for the limited purpose of this dispute, it cannot be held that the elections held on 14.8.2004 could be given any legal sanctity in the teeth of the order of this court dated 13.8 2004.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then urged that before passing the impugned order neither he was noticed nor any opportunity was provided to him, thus, the order is liable to be quashed.
8. A perusal of the order of the Joint Director does not make it clear as to whether any notice or opportunity was provided to the petitioner. In para 24 of the writ petition it is alleged that no opportunity was provided but there is no specific denial by defendant Nos. 5 and 6. However, the District Inspector of Schools in his counter affidavit has stated that as the matter had not been referred under Section 16-A (7) but under Government order dated 19.12.2000, therefore, no opportunity was required. The justification is bound to be rejected. The impugned order deals with the claim of the petitioner which has been rejected. The authority was exercising its power under Section 16-A (7) of the Act and since the order visits the petitioner with civil consequences an opportunity was necessary. A five Judges Full Bench of this court in the case of Committee of Management, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College V. Deputy Director of Education (2005 (1) UPLBEC 85) has reiterated that the authority while disposing off the rival claim has to grant opportunity of hearing to all the parties. Thus, the order is vitiated on this ground also.
9. For the reasons given above, this petition succeeds on this point alone and the order dated 15.9.2004 is hereby quashed and keeping in mind the spirit of the order dated 29.10.2001 passed in writ petition No. 3139 of 2001 and order dated 13.8.2004 passed in writ petition No. 3528 of 2004, the District Magistrate, Ballia is hereby directed to hold elections for the Committee of Management afresh under his supervision or under the supervision of his nominee not to be a person holding a lower rank than Additional District Magistrate, Ballia. No order as to costs