A.N Varma, J.:— The petitioner claiming to represent the management of the Hindu Intermediate College, Kosi Kalan, Mathura are aggrieved by the order dated 30-5-1986 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education Agra in the purported exercise of powers under Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act recognising the committee headed by Mathura Prasad Sharma as President and Sri Ram Rakshya Pal Arya as the Manager as constituting the Committee of Management in actual control of the affairs of the said institution.
2. The two groups, one represented by the petitioners and other by the respondent no. 3 vied with each other for the control of the management of the institution. The petitioners allege that they were duly elected on 19-1-1986 in pursuance of the directions Issued by the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Chits on 4-3-1983 exercising his powers under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act as the Committee of Management of the aforesaid institution. The respondents, on the other hand claim, that their Committee was elected on 27-1-1986 with Mathura Prasad Sharma as President and Ram Rakshya Pal Arya as Manager in accordance with the approved Scheme of Administration of the institution. Both the parties appear to have approached the District Inspector of Schools seeking recognition of their committees. The District Inspector of Schools finding that there was a dispute in respect of the management of the institution between the two rival groups, one represented by the petitioners and the other by the respondent no. 3 referred the same vide his order dated 1-2-1986 to the Deputy Director of Education for adjudication under Section 16-A(7). Thereafter both the rival claimants filed their written statements and adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. On a consideration of the same, the Deputy Director of Education passed the impugned order holding that it is the Committee of Management represented by the third respondent which was in actual control of the affairs of the institution and consequently recognised the same as constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution. For the petitioners, the first contention raised was that the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute in as much as the elections set up by the respondents were barred by sub-section 3 of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. The argument was that the elections at which the petitioners were elected had been held in pursuance of the direction issued by the Registrar of the Societies under sub-section 2 of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act in accordance both with the bye-laws of the Societies as well as the approved Scheme of Administration of the Institution, and consequently sub-section 3 of section came into play.
3. The submission is misconceived and must be rejected. Section 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act is a complete Code by itself in so far as the constitution of the Committee of Management of recognised institutions and the disputes pertaining to the management of institution are concerned. It begins with a non-obstante clause and says:—
“Notwithstanding anything in any law, document or decree or order of a Court or other instrument………….”
4. It provides that there shall be a Scheme of Administration for every institution which shall provide, amongst other matters, for the constitution of a Committee of Management vested with authority to manage and conduct of the affairs of the institution. The Scheme of Administration has to be approved by the Director of Education. The provision obligates that every recognised institution shall manage its affairs in accordance with that Scheme. Then follows the all-important sub-section 7 of Section 16-A which says:—
“Whenever there is dispute with respect to the management of an institution, persons found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, upon such enquiry, as it deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may, for purposes of this Act, be recognized to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise:
Provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub-section, afford reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing.”
5. The legislative intent behind Section 16-A seems explicit and unambiguous. It is that so far as the constitution of the Committee of Management of a recognized institution and disputes arising in respect thereof are concerned, the Director of Education or the Regional Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be, enjoy overriding powers in that within these spheres no other authority may intrude except that where the Regional Deputy Director of Education determines a dispute in respect of the management of the institution under sub-section 16-A(7) and finds any group of persons in actual control of its affairs and accords recognition to that group, the recognition operates until a court of competent jurisdiction determines the dispute. The object behind conferring such a power on a Regional Deputy Director of Education is not far to seek. For the proper functioning of a recognized institution the educational authorities charged with the duties of ensuring that the management is carrying on its obligations under the Intermediate Education Act and for smooth day to day management of the affairs to the institution it is necessary that dispute in respect of management must be resolved expeditiously by an authority constituted for that purpose under the Intermediate Education Act. Care has, however, been taken that rival rights of the persons claiming to represent the management should be left to be determined finally by courts of competent jurisdiction. But till that decision is rendered, the Regional Deputy Director of Education has to determine that dispute for himself so that the cause of the students and teachers or employees of the institution does not suffer by the continuing uncertainty or impasse.
6. The Societies Registration Act, on the other hand, deals, inter alia with the resolution of disputes with respect to the election of the office bearers of a registered society. The power of the registrar of the prescribed authority to determine disputes in respect of the election of the office bearers of the society, as distinct from the managing committee of the institution rule by that society, operates in an altogether different field from that with which the Regional Dy. Director is concerned. The two enactments, namely, the Intermediate Education Act and the Societies Registration Act, to our mind, operate in distinct fields. There is no overlapping between the two. Even if there is, insofar as disputes pertaining to the management of a recognized institution or the constitution of the Committee of Management are concerned, the Dy. Director of Education enjoys, in view of the scheme of the Act and the non-obstante clause used in Section 16-A(1) and the clear provisions of Section 16-A(1) exclusive powers save to the extent that the decision of the Dy. Director of Education under sub-section (7) shall operate only till a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise.
7. It is in this legislative perspective that we have to examine the question whether the Dy Director of Education acted beyond jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the dispute. Admittedly, two rival groups, one represented by the petitioners and the other by the third respondent, were both claiming to have been validly elected to constitute the committee of Management. They first staked their claim before the District Inspector of schools who, finding that there existed a dispute with respect to the management, referred the same for the adjudication of the Dy. Director of Education under Section 16-A(7). There is no manner of doubt that a dispute had arisen between the two rival groups. Both the parties submitted their respective claims in writing and had also adduced evidence in support thereof. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the dispute raised by the two parties was with respect to the management of the institution. The words used in the statute, “Whenever there is a dispute with respect to the management of an institution……” are words of the widest possible amplitude and clearly comprehended within its fold the dispute such as is involved in the present case.
8. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the impugned order does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction or from any other illegality. On the facts established on record the Deputy Director of Education rightly took cognizance of the dispute and passed the impugned order.
9. Coming to the impact of sub-section 3 of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, we are clearly of the opinion that the provision has no application to the present case. It provides that where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub-section 2 of that Section, no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority. The meeting contemplated under sub-section 2 of Section 25, however, is a meeting called by the Registrar of the General Body of the society for electing its office bearers in accordance with the rules of the society relating to such meetings and elections. But we are concerned here with the validity of the elections held for the constitution of the Committee of Management of the institution in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. Disputes pertaining to such elections have to be dealt with by the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A(7) in accordance with the Scheme of Administration approved by the Director of Education under sub-section I to 5 of Section 16-A and 16-B and 16-C of the intermediate Education Act and not the rules or the bye laws of the Society as in the first instance the Deputy Director has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the disputes pertaining to the management of recognised institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directed otherwise. Reference to sub-section 3 of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act is hence entirely out of place.
10. Conscious of this legal position, the petitioner came out with the plea that the executive elected by the General Body for the Society is in effect also the managing committee of the institution as the Society has no other object except to run this institution. Consequently, the Registrar alone was competent to decide the disputes pertaining to the elections of the managing committee of the institution.
11. We are unable to agree. Apart from the fact that in paragraphs 5 and 18 of the counter affidavit of Sri Madan Gopal filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3, it has been categorically asserted with reference to the Scheme of Administration that the constitution of executive body of the society is materially different from the constitution of the Committee of Management of the Society and, therefore, the election of the office bearers of the society could not automatically result in the election of the Committee of Management, the contention is devoid of any substance even on merits. As already noticed two rival groups both claiming to have been elected in accordance with the Scheme of Administration had set up their claims for being recognised before the District Inspector of Schools. Each was challenging the validity of the elections held by the other on the ground that the same had not been conducted in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. In such a contingency, the dispute fell squarely within the purview of the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Education upon the plain terms of Section 16-A(7). And as demonstrated above within the sphere of management of educational institutions recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, the Deputy Director enjoys, subject to the decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, exclusive powers. The Deputy Director was therefore competent in law to pass the impugned order.
12. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is equally untenable. It was that the respondents were estopped from challenging the validity of the elections held on 19-1-1986 inasmuch as some of the members of the rival groups had participated in the elections held under the directions of the Registrar.
13. There is absolutely no question of estoppel here. Participation in an election of the office bearers of the society, assuming that some of the rival contenders did participate, could not take away the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Education to determine the dispute raised before him by the rival contenders with regard to election of the Committee of Management and actual control over the affairs of the institutions. The scope of enquiry under section 16-A(7) is not coterminous, in so far as management disputes are concerned, with the enquiry envisaged under the Societies Registration Act.
14. Finally, learned counsel made an attempt to challenge the impugned order on merits and submitted that the Deputy Director of Education has not correctly decided the issue of actual control over the affairs of the institution. We, however, find no merit in the contention. On an examination of the averments made by the parties in their affidavits and annexures filed therewith as well as of the impugned order, we find that the Deputy Director of Education has committed an error in determining the controversy. The Deputy Director gave full hearing to the parties. He also addressed himself to the factors which he was enjoined by the statute to consider for determining the issue of actual control. His conclusions are also right. Further, the order of the Deputy Director of Education is by the terms of the statute operative only until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise. If, therefore, the petitioners have any grievance, they can raise the dispute before a court of competent jurisdiction. That being so, we find no ground for interference with the impugned order in any view.
15. In the result, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. The interim orders are hereby discharged.