The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for decisions to be in compliance with the principles of natural justice and supported by sufficient reasons.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S. D. Shukla on behalf of the petitioner, Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri R. N. Singh Senior advocate, assisted by Sri G. K. Singh on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

( 2 ) VIDYA Mandir Inter College, Chhaprauli, Baghpat is an institution aided and recognised under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act. An approved scheme of administration has been enforced in the institution under the order of the Joint Director of Education dated 26. 12. 1982.

( 3 ) THIS writ petition arises out of the order of Regional Level Committee dated 13. 9. 2004 and the consequential order of the District Inspector of Schools. Baghpat dated 16th September, 2004, whereby it has been held that the election of Sri Iswar Singh as Manager of the Committee of management cannot be accepted as the same is in violation of Clause 293 of the Education Code. However, the elections of the other office bearers of the Committee of Management, so elected, have been recognised with a condition that so long as fresh elections for the post of Manager is not held, Sri Mange Ram, the Deputy Manager, shall discharge the functions of the Manager of the institution. Against the aforesaid order Writ Petition No. 40122 of 2004 has been filed by lokendra Kumar and three others with the allegations that the order passed by the Regional Joint director of Education recognising the elections of other office bearers, is patently illegal.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the order passed by the District Inspector of schools is wholly illegal inasmuch as the Regional Level Committee, constituted under the government Order dated 19th December, 2000, has not afforded any opportunity of hearing, prior to recognising the elections set up with Sri Mange Ram as Deputy Manager. Reliance in that regard has been placed upon paragraph 31 and 34 of the writ petition. It is further submitted that the Regional Level Committee has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner including the basic objection that there were 24 contestant for the 12 posts. Instead of allotting separate symbol to individual contestant, two sets of symbol were allotted i. e. one symbol to 12 candidates and other symbol to other 12 candidates. It is submitted that the election officer himself had constituted two sets of contestants instead of getting the individual elections held in respect of the respective posts.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondent it is contended that petitioners had set up their independent rival elections. The issue of symbols having been awarded in an illegal manner can only be raised by a contestant of the elections only. The petitioners having not participated in the elections, wherein the symbols were allotted, cannot legally be permitted to raise such an objection. It is further submitted that the Regional Level Committee is not oblige to hear individual members. Sufficient opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the parties concerned. The present petition is in the nature of an election petition, which raises disputed question of fact and, therefore, civil suit is the proper remedy.

( 6 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.

( 7 ) IT is settled law that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India does not exercise appellate powers vis-a-vis the orders passed by the authorities below. The jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and the Court has to see as to whether the decision making process has been fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and further sufficient reasons in support of the impugned order have been recorded. The legal position in that regard has been settled by the Honble Supreme Court in the judgment of M. Naina Mohammed v. K. A. Natrajan and Ors. , (1975) 2 SCC 352,

( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid legal backgro