A.P.Sahi, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been preferred by the Committee of Management through Rajendra Singh as Manager of Inter College Sarsena, Sachuee, District Mau, assailing an order dated 18.10.2010 whereby the District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to revoke the proposal of suspension of Respondent No. 5-Shiv Sahai Singh claiming himself to be the Head of the Institution. The District Inspector of Schools has simultaneously imposed an order of single operation of accounts under Section 3 (3) of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 Act.
(2.) THE petition has been heard with the assistance of Sri Siddharth Verma for the respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who have stated at the Bar that they do not propose to file a counter-affidavit in view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed. Sri Khare, at the very out set on instructions received, contends that the present writ petition is confined to a challenge to the order imposing the single operation of accounts under Section 3 (3) of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 Act. The petitioner proposes to challenge the other part relating to the matter of suspension before the appropriate Bench. Accordingly, this writ petition is confined only to the extent of the order being impugned in relation to the single operation of accounts. Sri Khare submits that the signatures of the petitioner were attested and countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools in 2008. The respondents dispute this position and contend that no such signatures have been attested pursuant to any election held in the year 2008.
(3.) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the submission advanced, it is evident that earlier also the District Inspector of Schools invoked the powers under Section 5 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 2971 Act on 9.3.2010 to impose single operation of accounts. The same was assailed in Writ Petition No. 14201 of 2010 and it was allowed on the ground that the order had been passed without giving any notice or opportunity. Subsequently, the District Inspector of Schools again repeated his performance by passing an order on 12.7.2010 and the underlying theme of both the orders were that the petitioner is not the validly elected and recognized Committee of Management. On the second occasion also, this Court passed an interim order on 21.7.2010 in Writ Petition No. 42061 of 2010 which is still in operation. This is the third occasion when the District Inspector of Schools has resorted to Section 3 (3) of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 in order to impose single operation of accounts. Sri Khare submits that the aforesaid action of the District Inspector of Schools clearly amounts to malice in law inasmuch as once the earlier order founded on the same cause under Section 5 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 Act had been stayed by this Court then there was no occasion for the District Inspector of Schools to have resorted to a similar action in order to impose Section 3 (3) of the 1971 Act.;