Ravi S. Dhavan, J.:— This special appeal is the third case relating to the same issues about elections within a society known as the Mahatma Gandhi Shiksha Pracharini Samiti, Kudari, District Jalaun. This society runs an institution known as the Mahatma Gandhi Uchchttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Khudari, District Jalaun. This institution is recognised under the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed under the Act, aforesaid. The institution has a scheme of administration which saw amendments and it is accepted that the scheme of administration together with the amendments had been approved by the Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, on 31 December, 1983. It was by an ad-interim order dated 17 July, 1992 in writ petition No. 28805 of 1992 that there was a direction, regard being had to certain circumstances that the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun, was required to take over the institution forthwith and operate the accounts of the institution. Subsequently, by another order of 10 October, 1993, a direction was issued to the District Inspector of Schools to take over the management of the institution. By the subsequent order he had also been required to conduct an election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management within one month in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration. The Court also directed that once the election is over, the management is to be handed over to the duly elected Committee of Management. Not to be unnoticed is that the order was to the effect as indicated by the Court, even otherwise to be understood, that the election was to be carried out in accordance with law.

2. In so far as the issue is concerned, there, apparently, is no dispute amongst the parties at Bar, whether appellant, the respondent or even the State respondents. The issue is that, while the conduct of an election was in process with the District Inspector of Schools sitting over as incharge to run the management of the institution, could he induct new members; in the instant case life members? Submissions have been made at the Bar on behalf of the appellant, Ranbir Singh and the respondents, S.K Misra, the respondent Committee of Management, whatever be its status, and the District Inspector of Schools. The issue as noticed remains. The contentions of parties are also in affidavits exchanged on the stay application of the appellants.

3. The District Inspector of Schools in his affidavit, in paragraph 8 submits that the point involved is, to the effect, whether the District Inspector of Schools had powers to induct new members, while holding the charge of the institution as a Manager. Unfortunately, in this affidavit affirmed on 24 May, 1996, the District Inspector of Schools required a petty clerk to make submission before the High Court. But, the District Inspector of Schools seems to be conscious of the powers he may have been so vested with when the High Court appointed him to take charge of the Management of the educational institution.

4. However, as between counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.P Sahi and counsel for the contesting respondent, Mr. V.S Singh, the contention has been that the matter may be seen as analogous to under Section 16-D of the Act, aforesaid. On the proposition on whatever may be the powers which may vest in an Authorised Controller of an institution, until such time when a Committee of Management has been lawfully constituted to replace it, the powers of the District Inspector of Schools, in the present case, could not be more unless spelled out by the High Court. The premises of the issue is accepted by the parties.

5. In so far as the contention of the District Inspector of Schools is concerned, submitted through a clerk on an affidavit, the Standing Counsel, Mr. U.K Pandey, has been more than fair to submit that the District Inspector of Schools can have no more powers than an Authorised Controller may not have and in so far as the other aspects are concerned, has straightaway conceded that a power which has not been spelled out, the District Inspector of Schools may not have. Consequently, learned Standing Counsel submitted, the District Inspector of Schools, in the present case, cannot assume a power to induct new members while the Committee of Management is superseded. While this proposition of learned Standing Counsel may remain on record, the Court will see the aspect as contended between the rival parties.

6. The Court has referred to the two orders by which the District Inspector of Schools had been required to replace the Committee of Management and, thereafter, conduct an election, in accordance with law, and handover the management to the elected Committee of Management and its office bearers. The issue, apparently, sprang up when the District Inspector of Schools permitted the induction of 31 life members. This gave rise to writ petition No. 35059 of 1995: S.K Mishra v. The District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun, at Orai. On this writ petition came a decision dated 14 December, 1995. In so far as the relevant parts of the judgment are concerned, the extracts are:

“…………………… There is no doubt that the Authorised Controller can never be treated as substitute for the Management Committee or the general body of an Association or Institution. The Authorised Controller is not appointed within the scheme of administration of the Institution. He is appointed by reason of statutory provisions only to fill up the void and restore the management of the Institution according to the scheme of administration by directing him to hold the election. The Authorised Controller is not given power by reason whereof he can induct members in an association of persons or bring about changes in the structure of the association much to the chagrin and prejudice of the members.

The Authorised Controller, who are directed to hold the election according to the scheme of administration by order dated 10.10.1995 was never empowered under the scheme of administration to induct members. An Authorised Controller can never be authorised to take upon himself the function of an association with an element of democracy. He simply manages the administration as stop gap measure. He can never be empowered to usurp the decision making process or power with regard to the basic structure of the association. He acts only as manager. Such a power would be completely opposed to the concept of an association of persons. An Authorised Controller if enters upon such a domain in that event it would amount to encroaching upon the freedom of association of which he is not a member. Then again the way the members have been inducted also does not show that these members were taken in the normal course of functioning. All the members have come in a group for particular purpose. By an order dated 21.9.1995 which is Annexure-VII to the writ petition the District Inspector of Schools had already settled the list of members containing 17 names. Thereafter, he had issued another letter on 25.11.1995 by which he has shown 31 new members. This induction of members is not a part of the election process.

It is a part, which is to be played by the general body or the management committee who according to the Authorised Controller is entitled to induct members. The District Inspector of Schools was authorised to hold the election on the basis of members of the Institution. The process of election would commence with the holding of the election with the existing members which he had finalised on 21.9.1995

Be that as it may in the present case Mr. Rai submits that the election has already been held and the result had already been declared. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Sankatha Rai, counsel for the respondent that this Court cannot interfere with the election process once started cannot be sustained. Election having been over the same is now open to scrutiny.

The proposition that an election if commenced the process cannot be stopped and cannot be interfered with is an established proposition and it need no repetition as has been held particularly in the case cited by Mr. Rai. The said submission now has become redundant since the result of the election has already been declared.

In the present case the question can be decided without any further evidence only by the decision as to the entitlement of the District Inspector of Schools to induct members. It is, therefore, would not desirable to refer the parties to Civil Court now.

Therefore, on the basis of material placed before this Court when it had been found that the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to induct new members as has been done in this case, the election in which those new members admittedly have taken part, cannot be sustained and therefore the same is quashed. The District Inspector of Schools shall hold fresh election on the basis of the members already on record without allowing the 31 new members to participate in the election. This process should be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the District Inspector of Schools. The petition is thus disposed of.

There will however no order as to costs.”

7. Before anything else is reflected upon this issue, it would be safer to see the relevant provisions of the law under the Act, aforesaid. Given a certain situation, the law permits the Committee of Management of an institution to be replaced by the appointment of an Authorised Controller to take over for a specified period which may not exceed two years. This aspect is discernible from sub-clause (4) to Section 16-D. The Court is not going into the question as to how long an Authorised Controller may continue as the aspect before the Court is on what may be the limits of his powers. Are they same as are normally attributed in totality to the Committee of Management? The answer is in the negative.

8. While the Committee of Management may have the power to transfer any moveable property, the Authorised Controller does not. The Authorised Controller may set about to discharge his function day to day but does not have the power to alienate and transfer any immovable property, (except by way of letting from month to month in the ordinary course of management) but may create a charge on the properties. Thus, while he may carry out day to day functions, as the Committee of Management otherwise may have done, any special directions he may receive from the Director for the proper management of the institution or its properties. This aspect is spelled out in sub-clause (9) and (11) to Section 16-D of the Act, aforesaid. Section 16-DD permits an Authorised Controller to take over charge of the concerned institution and its properties to the exclusion of the Committee of Management, but his powers will be subject to such restrictions as the State Government may impose. These are the broad guidelines on the functions of an Authorised Controller. The rest is a matter of prudence.

9. Plainly the issue is as if there is local Government and local self-Government. An aspect which can be seen as a corporation—sole as opposed to a corporation with elected members. Even where local-self-Government, as an institution, has been provided for and protected by the Constitution of India, it is not that local-self-Government may not be superseded. But, the powers of an Administrator of a superseded local body, a municipality for instance, are curtailed. He may carry on the administration, yet may not impose fresh taxes as this is best left to the elected representatives. Taking it to a higher plain, when a Legislature is not in session a Governor may issue an Ordinance, but within a specified period it must be laid before the Legislature.

10. In the instant case, the Committee of Management is not available, instead there is a District Inspector of Schools who has been appointed, in effect, as an Authorised Controller by an order of the High Court. He had been caused with an obligation to conduct an election. The question is whether the District Inspector of Schools could, during the course of his management of the institution as an Authorised Controller, induct life members. The learned Judge, who gave the judgment on the writ petition, was of the view that the basic structure of the institution, whether the general body or the Committee of Management, could not be changed by such induction of life members. The learned Judge was of the opinion that this should best be left to the normalcy of the institution, when there is a general body and a Committee of Management. It is for this reason and for good measure, the Court has observed that an Authorised Controller can never be treated as a substitute to a Committee of Management or a general body of a society or an institution. (Shiv Pratap Singh v. Deputy Director of Education.1)

11. Permitting induction of new members by an Authorised Controller or, for that matter, the District Inspector of Schools in a similar situation would be putting such an authority into a power and position which even the law did not spell out. Induction of new members is best left to be filtered and inducted by the general body and the Committee of Management as the scheme of administration may provide. But for an Authorised Controller, as a corporation-sole, to take the responsibility of changing the fabric of the committee of members of a society or a trust may be too sweeping a power which is not compatible with the provisions of the Act, aforesaid. The appointment of an Authorised Controller is in itself a temporary phase. The law suffers the appointment of an Authorised Controller and provides for it, but does not encourage it. What is encouraged by the law is the return to normalcy by an election and the management being handed over to a Committee of Management.

12. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Judge was not in error when he quashed the induction of 31 new members, to participate in an election, and consequently gave a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to hold a fresh election.

13. The judgment is affirmed.

14. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Appeal Dismissed.