N.D. Ojha, J. - (1.) NONAPUR Intermediate College, NONAPUR district Kanpur is an institution recognised under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and is run by a committee of management constituted according to the Scheme of Administration framed under the Act and the Regulations. The election of its managing committee took place on 18th November, 1977, wherein Anant Ram was elected as the Manager. An information in this behalf was sent to the District Inspector of Schools and an order dated 13th January, 1978, was passed by the District Inspector of Schools recognising said Anant Ram as the manager. We point out at this place that in writ petition No. 12725 of 1975 Com mittee of Management S. A. V. Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools decided on 24th November 1977 a Divisional Bench of this court held:- "Under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act as well as under the High Schools and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, the District Inspector of Schools has to perform various administrative functions of statutory character in colla boration with the management of High Schools and Intermediate College. These duties cannot be discharged by the District Inspector of Schools unless he is in a position to find out on an administrative level as to who are the real office bearers of the college. For this limited purpose the District Inspector of Schools must be of necessity satisfy himself as to who, according to him, are validly elected office bearers of the institution. If any party feels dissatisfied with the administrative decision taken by District Inspector of Schools he is at liberty to file a suit against the rival claimants for adjudication of their rights either as office bearers or as members of the Managing Committee. In the event- of a decree being obtained by such a party there can be little doubt that the District Inspector of Schools, in case he has taken a wrong decision, will alter his decision and will recognise that party in whose favour decision has been given judicially.-' In view of the aforesaid decision if anyone was aggrieved by the order dated 13th January, 1978, the remedy available to such person was to have instituted a suit for declaration of his rights. In place of doing so Gaya Prasad respon dent no. 2 appears to have made an application for review before the District Inspector of Schools. This application was allowed by the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 31st May, 1978, whereby the derecognised Anant Ram and took the view that Gaya Prasad, who had been the manager prior to the election held on 13th November, 1977, would continue to be recognised as the manager of the institution. It is this order of the Dis trict Inspector of Schools which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. Counter-affidavit have been filed both on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools, respondent no. 1, as also by Gaya Prasad, respondent no. 2. Rejoinder affidavits have also been filed. We are of opinion that it is a fit case which may be finally decided at this very stage as contemplated by the second proviso to Rule 2(1) of Chapter XXII of the Rules of court. Having heard counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel and Sri B. N.L. Katiyar, counsel for the respondent no. 2, we are of opinion that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. In R.S. Chaube v. Disirici Inspector of Schools 1978(4) ALR 14 = 1978 A. W. C. 40 a Division Bench of this court has held that there is no provision under the Intermediate Education Act or in the regulations framed there under conferring power on the District Inspector of Schools of review of an order according ap proval under section 16-E of the Act. An exception to this rule has, however, been made and it is to the effect that the District Inspector of Schools could recall or revoke his order if it is obtained by mistake, misrepresentation or fraud. And even this cannot be done unless an opportunity of hearing or explanation has been given to the person who will be affected by such order. It is true that it was a case of according approval under section 16-E of the afore said Act but the principle laid down therein would apply to the facts of the instant case too as no provision has been brought to our notice enabling the District Inspector of Schools to review such an order as was passed by him on 13th January, 1978. One of the pleas raised in the present writ petition on behalf of the peti tioner is that before passing the order dated 31st of May, 1978, the District Inspector of Schools did not give any opportunity of hearing whatever to the committee of management elected on 13th November, 1977 or to Anant Ram, the manager, In paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter-affidavit of Inderjit Sahoo it has been stated that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing before passing the order dated 31st May, 1978. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on a letter dated 22nd November, 1977 i.e. by one Gaya Ram said to be a companion of Anant Ram. It would be seen that letter is dated 22nd November, 1977 i.e. of a date prior to the date on which the original order dated 13th January, lb75 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Apparently therefore, whatever was said in this letter was relevant for a point of time before the order dated I3th January, 1978 was passed. The said letter cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated as proof of an opportunity of hearing being given to Anant Ram in respect of the application of review made by Gaya Prasad. It is thus apparent that the order dated 31st May, 1978, was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to Anant Ram who had been recognised as the manager of the college by order dated 13th January, 1978. Even though the decision taken by the District Inspector of Schools in such matters is of a summary and administrative nature but once such a decision has been taken and an order has been passed in favour of the person that order cannot be recalled or reviewed by him at his sweet will without giving an opportunity of hearing to the person in whose favour it was passed, since it was not so done in the instant case the writ petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. In view of the foregoing reasons the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 31st May, 1978, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, res pondent no. 1, is quashed. We however, make no order us to costs.;