JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It is not necessan' to issue notice to respondent No. 4 in view of the order proposed to be passed in the present writ petition.
2. It is not in dispute that a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 272 of 2003, passed an interim order on 22.4.2003, whereby it was directed that "the arrangement for the Management of the Educational Institution in question which was being continued with the concurrence of the concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari shall continue and further proceedings consequent upon the impugned order shall remain stayed". The said special appeal is still pending and interim order continues to be operative as stated by the petitioners.
3. Thereafter on 24.4.2003,' the Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed an order recognizing the Committee of Management headed by Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra as the lawful Committee of Management of the institution and accordingly attested his signature. The said order dated 24.4.2003, passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was challenged by Sri Chandra Shekhar, the present petitioner, by means of Writ Petition No. 21487 of 2003, wherein vide order dated 19.5.2003, this Court granted stay order in favour of the petitioner with a further direction that the Committee of Management which was functioning on 22.4.2004 shall continue to run and manage the affairs of the institution in terms of the order dated 22.4.2004 passed in special appeal.
4. The said direction of the learned Single Judge was in conformity with the order passed by the Division Bench in the special appeal referred to above. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, on 19.6.2003, again passed an order holding therein that the Committee of Management with Sri Chandra Shekhar as the Manager was the lawful Committee of Management in control of the management and affairs of the institution and therefore, the signature of Sri Chandra Shekhar were attested as Manager of the institution.
5. The said order dated 19.6.2003, passed by the B,asic Shiksha Adhikari was again challenged by Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra claiming himself to be the Manager of the institution, by means of Writ Petition No. "29531 of 2003. This Court again passed an interim order dated 17.7.2003, in favour of Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra, keeping the order dated 19.6.2003 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in abeyance with a direction that the Committee of Management which had been functioning on 22.4.2003 shall continue to run and manage the affairs of the institution.
6. In compliance of the interim order passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition No. 29531 of 2003, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed an order dated 30.10.2003, holding that since the Committee of Management headed by Sri Chandra Shekhar was functioning on 22.4.2004, therefore, it will continue to function as before.
7. The said order dated 30.10.2003, passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was again challenged by Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra, by means of Writ Petition No. 50373 of 2003. This Court again passed an interim order dated 12.11.2003, in the said writ petition staying the operation of the order dated 30.10.2003, passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.
8. Thereafter the Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed another order dated 22.11.2003, directing single operation of account of the institution exercising powers under Section 5(1) of the U.P. High School and Intermediate (Teachers and other Employee) Payment of Salary Act, 1971.
9. In compliance of the interim order dated 12.11.2003, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 50373 of 2003, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide order dated 19.7.2004 recognized the Committee of Management with Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra as the Manager and attested the signature of Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra as Manager of the Institution.
10. Sri Chandra Shekhar, the present petitioner, challenged the said order dated 19.7.2004, passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, by means of Writ Petition No. 29482 of 2004. This Court again passed an interim order on 6.8.2004, staying the operation of the said order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari with a direction that interim arrangement shall continue as per interim orders passed in special appeal.
11. In compliance of the aforesaid interim passed by this Court on 6.8.2004, in Writ Petition No. 29482 of 2004, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, vide order dated 20.8.2004, cancelled the attestation of the signature of Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra as Manager of the institution till further orders of this Court or till the term of the Committee of Management expires, whichever is earlier.
12. From the orders of this Court which have been noticed hereinabove as well as from the orders passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari it is apparently clear that at least two orders passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in favour of Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra and two orders in favour of Sri Chandra Shekhar have been stayed by this Court in various writ petitions filed by the parties.
13. In the opinion of the Court the Basic Shiksha Adhikari had no other option but to ensure that the orders of this Court are complied with, consequently in compliance of the order of this Court dated 6.8.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 29482 of 2004, he passed the order dated 20.8.2004, Annexure-23 to the writ petition. The said order dated 20.8.2004, does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. The second prayer for renewal of registration certificate of the society as well as for registration of the list of members of the petitioner's Committee of Management for the year 2002-2003 under Section 3/4 of the Societies Registration Act is highly belated. The renewed certificate was issued on 8.11.2001. The petitioners did not challenge the same within reasonable time. So far as the registration of the list of office bearers of the Committee of Management for the year 2002-2003 is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that once the year has expired there is no question of registration of the list of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the society for that particular year. The prayer is totally misconceived.
15. In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed