- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th March 2000 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dis missed.
(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. An election to elect the committee of management was held on-18-12-1998. Both the appellant No. 2 and C. B. Tripathi claimed to have been elected as Manager of the institution. The D. I. O. S. by his order dated 9-1-1999 referred the matter to the Joint Director of Education for his decision under Section 16- A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The Joint Director by his order dated 28-2-2000 held that C. B. Tripathi (respondent No. 3) had been elected as Manager of the institution and he is in effective control over the af fairs of the institution. Against this order, the appellant preferred the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Counsel has contended that an opportunity of hearing was not given to the appellant and, therefore, there was violation of natural justice. The order passed by the Joint Director clearly shows that parties appeared before him and they filed documents and thereafter the impugned order was passed. It cannot, therefore, be said that the opportunity of hearing to the appellant was not given. Learned Counsel has submitted that the order passed by the Joint Director is not in accordance with Section 16-A (7) of the Act, as the Joint Director has not con sidered the question of effective control. The order passed by the Joint Director runs into 32 pages and he has considered every relevant material. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel that the question of effective con trol has not been decided. In order to decide the aforesaid controversy, the Joint Director has also looked into various details leading to the election, wherein, respondent No. 3 was elected as Manager. We do not find any error in the impugned orders of the Joint Director, which may warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It may also be pointed out that the learned Single judge has observed that it will be open to the appellant to institute a civil suit for declaration of his rights. The order passed by the Joint Director is an administrative order and it is always open to the appellant to seek declaration of his rights by filing a suit. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The special Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed summarily at the admission stage. Appeal dismissed. .;