R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) THE dispute relating to the right to manage Intermediate College was referred to the Deputy Director of Education, under Section 16 -A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Deputy Director vide order dated 8.6.1994 held the election of the Committee of Management of which Udaibhan Singh, appellant No. 1 is the manager, as valid. In pursuance of the above order of the Deputy Director, the signatures of Udaibhan Singh were attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 25.6.1994. The Committee of Management of which Ghanshyam is the manager, filed a writ petition challenging the above order dated 8.6.1994 of the Deputy Director of Education before this Court. The learned Single Judge, while admitting the writ petition, passed the following interim order: Admit. Sri D.D. Chauhan, Advocate represents respondent No. 3. Notices on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 have been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel. The opposite parties are granted four week's time to file counter affidavit. In case counter affidavit is filed, the petitioners may file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks. Meanwhile the operation of order dated 8.6.1994 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, VII Region Gorakhpur shall remain stayed and authorised Controller shall discharge the function as before. Sd/ - 5.7.1994 Against the above interim order, this appeal has been filed by the appellants who are arrayed as respondents in the writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, has made two submissions in this appeal, namely (i) the learned Single Judge, has by means of the interim order granted the relief which could have been granted only at the time of final disposal of the writ petition; (ii) As the signatures of the appellant No. 1 had been attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 25.6.1994 in pursuance of above order of the Dy. Director, this court ought not to have granted the interim order. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
(3.) IT is true that relief which could be granted at the time of final disposal of the writ petition, cannot be granted by means of the interim order, unless there is any special reason to be indicated in clear term. But in the instant case, this is not the position. The relief claimed by the respondent No. 3 in the writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 8.6.1994 passed by the Dy. Director under Sec. 16 -A(7). This relief has not been granted by the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as the said order has not been quashed. The learned Single Judge has merely stayed the operation of the above order of the Dy. Director. Staying the operation of an order is different from quashing it. Hon. Supreme Court in M/s. Chaumundi Mopeds Limited v. Church of South India Trust Association : AIR 1992 SC 1439, has pointed out the distinction between the quashing of an order and the staying of operation of the order. It was held that result of the stay order of that the order stayed would not be operative from the date of passing of the stay order, and that order is that wiped out from existence. But when the order is quashed, it ceases to exist and position as it stood on the date of passing of the order is restored. By staying the operation of the order, the relief which could be granted at the time of final disposal of the writ petition cannot be said to have been granted. Same is the position when the court grants interim injunction.;