JUDGMENT :

P.S. Kailasam, J. - Special leave granted.

2. The dispute arises out of an election of a College Committee. The appellant no. 1. Jaswant Singh, was declared to have been elected as Manager the Committee. Respondent no. 2 Chandra Kiran Singh Tyagi asserted that no such committee, as alleged by the appellants, was elected on that date and that another committee of management of which he was the Manager and had been elected. The dispute was referred to the District Inspector of Schools, respondent no. 1 who by bis order dated 8th August, 1978, held that the committee of management of which the appellant no 1 was the Manager was the duly constituted committee. Respondent no. 2 aggrieved by this order filed suit no. 440 of 1978 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Meerut and prayed for an ad-interim injunction restraining appellant no. 1 and other defendants from interfering with the working, of the management and control. This application was dismissed. In dismissing the application the civil court was of the view that the case of the plaintiffs appeared to be prima facie correct and observed that the District Inspector of-Schools should review his order in the interest of justice to put the real elected party in a position to control and manage the affairs of the college. This unfortunate order was led to further complications.

3. The respondent no. 2 took the matter before the District Inspector of Schools who by his order dated 13th October, 1979, recalled his earlier order dated 8th August, 1978 and held that the committee of management as asserted by Chandra Kiran Singh Tyagi, respondent no. 2 had been elected in the meeting held on June 26, 1978, and gave recognition to that committee of management.

4. Aggrieved by this order the appellant Jaswant Singh filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court after observing that the District Inspector of Schools should not have arranged to himself the jurisdiction of the civil court ultimately decided to interfere with the order of the District Inspector of Schools mainly on the ground that the District Inspector of Schools had virtually ignored the minutes of the meeting.

5. We feel that the observations of the civil court in disposing of the interlocutory application were erroneous and subsequent proceeding by the District Inspector of Schools and the High Court are not sustainable. The civil court is seized of the matter and any interim relief which the parties may seek have to be decided and adjudicated upon by the civil court. We set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools on review and the order of the High Court. The parties would be at liberty to apply to the civil court and the civil court will dispose of the claims of the parties according to law.

Appeal allowed.