Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—The petitioner claims himself to be a life member of the General Body of the society in question. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 24.4.2004 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, whereby the signature of the Respondent No. 5 has been attested as Manager of the Committee of Management in pursuance of the approval accorded by the Regional Committee on 19.4.2004 whereby the elections dated 19.10.2003, in which Respondent No. 5 was elected as Manager, had been recognized.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri G.K.Singh, learned counsel for the contesting Respondent No. 5, that the petitioner, who is merely a life member of the general body of the Society, would have no locus to maintain this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri S.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the contesting parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

4. In pursuance of the Government Order dated 19.12.2000, the District Inspector of Schools had forwarded the papers with regard to the election of the Committee of Management held on 19.10.2003 to the Regional Committee headed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, Respondent No. 2. By order dated 19.4.2004 the Regional Committee recognized the election and consequently the District Inspector of Schools attested the signature of the Respondent No. 5. It is not the case that there was any dispute between two rival committees with regard to the said elections. The petitioner is merely an individual member of the general body of the society who has challenged the orders recognizing the elections and attestation of signature of Respondent No. 5 as Manager.

5. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Janta Inter College v. Joint Director of Education, 1999(1) UPLBEC 170 has, while considering a case under Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, observed that “In case such dispute is stretched or extended to the right of each individual member, in that event, if any member raised such dispute then the whole administration is expected to collapse since the Joint Director would remain busy and pre-occupied with deciding such disputes which may be raised by any individual.”

6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. P.P. Rastogi v. Meerut University, Meerut, (1997) 1 UPLBEC 415 has, in a case filed by an individual member of the Committee of Management, held that “an individual member of the Committee of Management has no locus standi in such cases and it is only the Committee of Management alone which can appear as a party in the case. To permit individual members of the Committee of Management to appear before us would create a lot of problems because any individual member or several members may file applications at any time through his/their own separate counsel, resulting in confusion.......”

7. In the present case, the petitioner is also an individual member of the general body of the society and has challenged the decision of the District Inspector of Schools whereby the signature of Respondent No. 5 has been attested, after the approval has been granted by the Regional Committee. In such facts, this writ petition would not be maintainable on the ground that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to file this writ petition. In my view, if each individual member of the general body is allowed to file writ petitions, without the law recognizing their right to raise such dispute, the same would open a flood gate of litigation, adding further confusion to the already existing situation where very often separate petitions are filed by different par