AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Varanasi, dated 24th December, 2019 contained in Annexure 20 to the writ petition. The order is in two parts. The first part of the order holds that after the last election held to constitute the managing committee of the society on 17.8.2011, under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, no valid elections have been held and, consequently the Assistant Registrar has proceeded to invoke his jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1860, and a direction is issued to conduct fresh elections, accordingly. The second part of the order holds that there are 93 valid members of the society and a direction has been issued to register them as members under Section 4-B of the newly inserted provision in the Act of 1860.
The dispute raised in the present writ petition has a chequered history and it would be necessary to refer to certain facts before adverting to the merits of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar.
Uchchattar Madhyamic Vidyalaya Nevadhiya Jaunpur Society is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was initially registered on 19.10.1951. This society has its registered bye-laws and the conduct of election or enrollment of members etc. is regulated by it. The society has been renewed from time to time and the last registration stands renewed w.e.f. 10.10.2015 for a period of five years. The society is running an Intermediate College recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 known as "Inter College Nevadhiya Jaunpur" and the provisions of the U.P. High Schools And Intermediate Colleges (Payment Of Salaries Of Teachers And Other Employees) Act, 1971, are also applicable upon it. A scheme of administration has also been approved by the Deputy Director of Education for the management of the educational institution. The dispute raised in the present writ petition is with regard to the society, which manages the institution. It would, however, be relevant to note that General Body of the society and the educational institution is one and the same.
Dispute relating to elections to constitute the managing committee of the society, as also the members validly enrolled in the society, who could take part in the election, has been a subject matter of dispute for fairly long. It appears that a dispute with regard to holding of election of the society was referred to the prescribed authority, who passed an order on 18.12.1987, which is on record of the writ petition as Annexure 3. This order of the prescribed authority apparently was a result of compromise and contained a list of 130 members of the society. Again on 25th August, 2009, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits passed an order invoking his jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 for holding elections on the basis of list of General Body of society, submitted by the respondent no. 3 Abhay Narayan Tiwari. This order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 50206 of 2009. This writ petition came to be allowed on 26.4.2010. The order of Assistant Registrar was set aside with a direction issued to the Assistant Registrar to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties concerned. Following observations from the judgment dated 26.4.2010 is reproduced hereinafter:-
"It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the order dated 25th August, 2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also made a feeble attempt to challenge the order dated 1st October, 2008 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Varanasi by which he had ordered that the election of the Committee of Management of the Society should be held under Section 25(2) of the Act since the petitioner-Committee of Management had become time barred. In coming to such a conclusion, the Assistant Registrar had noted that the term of the Committee of Management of the Society expired on 9th June, 1995 and papers regarding the fresh election of the Committee of Management held on 29th October, 1995 were submitted on 30th October, 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy the Court that there is any infirmity in the order dated 1st October, 2008."
Pursuant to aforesaid directions, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Varanasi, passed a fresh order on 27.12.2010, declaring a list of 54 members of the society, who could take part in the election of the managing committee. This order was challenged in writ petition no. 797 of 2011, wherein an interim protection was granted by this Court on 17.1.2011. This order came to be challenged before a division bench in Special Appeal No. 102 of 2011, which was disposed of vide following orders passed on 24.1.2011:-
"The appellant has challenged the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.1.2011. There is a prohibition under the High Court Rules in entertaining the special appeal. However, by a judgement of this Court in Special Appeal No. 662 of 2010 (S.M.A. Abidi and another Vs. Private Secretaries Brotherhood, Office of U.P. State Law Officers, Allahabad/Lucknow and another) decided on May 5, 2010 we have already held that if the interim order has trapping of finality then the appeal is maintainable.
Therefore when the election of the Society which has been notified has been interfered by the Court and passed an order of stay contrary to the decision of the Division Bench reported in Gulab Dhar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2009 (2) UPLBEC 1562, we are of the view that the appeal can be held to be maintainable.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that notification of election has already been made by the authority on 7.1.2011 and was scheduled on 20.1.2011. Therefore, it should not have been proper from the learned Single Judge to interfere with such election ignoring the Division Bench order and stay the same.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that infact the Registrar has passed an order on the basis of the members of 1979 which has been modified by a subsequent order on the basis of strength of 1995. Administrator was appointed for the college not for the society in which 20 members have been inducted.
We have carved out the viamedia to resolve the dispute herein. The election which is scheduled to be held on 28.1.2011 will be held but the result of such election will be kept under sealed cover and will be produced before the prescribed authority. In turn such prescribe authority will decide the issue raised by the respondent within a period of one month thereafter upon hearing the parties and passing reasoned order thereon. If the decision become unsatisfactory to any of the parties, it is open for him/them to initiate any proceeding before the appropriate forum and for which this writ petition will not be treated as the first writ petition on behalf of contesting respondents herein. However, if the prescribed authority found that there is no dispute, it is open for him to open the sealed cover and publish the result.
In view of the direction as above, both the appeal and the writ petition can be disposed of upon vacating the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission, however, without imposing any cost. Consequently, by consent of the parties writ petition is also treated as on day's list and disposed of without imposing any cost."
It transpires that the dispute of election was then referred to the prescribed authority/S.D.M., who proceeded to pass a detailed order on 26.4.2011. The order of the prescribed authority, dated 26.4.2011 has apparently attained finality. The operative portion of the order of prescribed authority reads as under:-
"उपरोक्त सभी तथ्यों को देखने से स्पष्ट है कि तत्कालीन उपजिलाधिकारी द्वारा जो आदेश दिनांक 18-12-87 को पारित किया गया है और उस समय 130 बैध सदस्य दिखाये गये किन्तु उस 130 बैध सदस्यों की कोई सूची मूलरूप में पत्रावली में उपलब्ध नहीं है। यह भी तथ्य सामने आया है कि समिति के चुनाव हेतु सहायक निबंधक इलाहाबाद ने जिस सूची से चुनाव कराने का आदेश दिया उस सूची में कुछ ऐसे व्यक्तियों को सम्मिलित किया गया है जो प्रबंध संचालक द्वारा सदस्य बनाये गये हैं। जबकि मा० उच्च न्यायालय के विभिन्न निर्णयों से यह तथ्य स्थापित है कि प्रबंध संचालक को सोसाईटी का सदस्य बनाने का अधिकार नहीं है। वर्तमान चुनाव प्रबंध संचालक द्वारा बनाये गये सदस्यों को सम्मिलित करके कराया गया है जिससे चुनाव में भाग लेने वाले सभी व्यक्ति विधिक रूप से सदस्य नहीं है। इस प्रकार कुछ बैध सदस्यों के साथ अन्य व्यक्तियों को जो सदस्य नहीं है सम्मिलित करके कराया गया चुनाव अनुचित एवं अवैध है और किसी प्रकार से उस चुनाव को बैध और मान्य नहीं किया जा सकता। चुनाव बैध न पाये जाने के कारण बंद लिफाफे को खोलने का प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता है। साथ ही उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों के सम्यक परीशीलन से पूर्वपरगनाधिकारी मडियाहूँ द्वारा आदेश दिनांक 18.12.87 से विजयनरायन तिवारी द्वारा प्रस्तुत 130 व 93 आजीवन सदस्यों में जीवित सदस्यों को बैध मानते हुयें ए०आर वाराणसी को उपरोक्त समिति के प्रबन्ध समिति के चुनाव हेतु आदेशित किया जाता है। तद्नुसार प्रश्नगत संदर्भ मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन में निस्तारित किया जाता है। आदेश की प्रमाणित प्रतिलिपि सहायक निबन्धक वाराणसी व इलाहाबाद को भेजा जाय।"
Based upon the orders of the prescribed authority, the Assistant Registrar proceeded to pass an order on 23.7.2011, which is Annexure 2 to the rejoinder affidavit. The Assistant Registrar after noticing the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 25.8.2009 and the subsequent order passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 102 of 2011, proceeded to invoke his jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1860 for holding of fresh elections and for such purposes appointed Tehsildar Madiyahun, Jaunpur, as the Election Officer. This order of the Assistant Registrar contains a list of members of the society numbering 93 in all. The elections, consequently have been held on 17.8.2011. The list of office-bearers, accordingly, has been registered with a term of three years. It would be worth noticing that this order of Assistant Registrar came to be challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 66256 of 2011, which was disposed of vide following orders passed on 7.5.2013:-
"Disposed of.
For order, see my order of date passed in Writ-C No.66256 of 2011. "
The order aforesaid appears to contain an typographical error, inasmuch as, the disposal of writ petition apparently was in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 36231 of 2012, decided on same date i.e. 7.5.2013. The order passed in Writ Petition No. 36231 of 2012 is reproduced hereinafter:-
"Heard learned counsels for the parties.
In this matter the term of the committee of management has expired in the year 1987. The 'Prabandh Sanchalak' is currently running the institution in question. A prayer has been made by the petitioners that the election may be held in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the Joint Director of Education is directed to examine the matter and hold the election in accordance with law preferably within a period of six months from today and all the eligible members will be allowed to participate in it.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of."
A special appeal is said to have been preferred against the judgment dated 7.5.2013, but the same is reported to be pending.
The committee of management which was elected on 17.8.2011 states that fresh elections were held on 1.8.2014 and 6.8.2017, but there is neither any consideration, nor any discussion in the order of the Assistant Registrar with regard to legality of such elections. The present petitioners also claim to have conducted a fresh election on 28.2.2016. Papers in that regard were submitted before the Assistant Registrar vide Application, dated 29.2.2016 and as no orders were passed upon it, the present petitioners filed writ petition no. 35505 of 2018 which has been disposed of vide following orders passed on 26.10.2018:-
"The petitioners claim that they were duly elected in an election held on 28.02.2016. The election is that of a registered society in the name of Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalay Newadhiya, Jaunpur. It is also claimed that thereafter, by an application dated 29.02.2016, a request was made to the Assistant Registrar i.e. respondent no. 2 to register the list of office bearers in exercise of power under Section 4 of the Society Registration Act, 1860. It was followed by another application dated 29.06.2017, in which a prayer was made to register the list of members of the general body in exercise of power under Section 4-B of the Act. However, since no decision has been taken on these applications so far, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to take decision on the said applications.
Learned Standing Counsel states that the second respondent shall take decision on the applications within such time as may be directed by this Court.
Accordingly, without entering into merits of the claim of the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the above referred applications filed by the petitioners in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
It is needless to mention that before taking any decision, all the concerned parties shall be put to notice and shall be duly heard."
It is pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the writ court that the issue has been examined by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi by his order impugned. A perusal of the order of the Assistant Registrar would clearly go to show that neither legality of the claim of election set up by the outgoing committee has been examined, nor the claim of election set up by the present petitioners has been adverted to. The finding returned by the Assistant Registrar that no elections have been held after 17.8.2011 proceeds apparently in utter disregard of the respective claim of election set up by the parties. Once the parties had set up their claim of election, the Assistant Registrar was expected to deal with such claim with reference to the provisions of the bye-laws and without doing so it was not open for the Assistant Registrar to abruptly hold that no elections have been held after 17.8.2011. The order of the Assistant Registrar in proceeding to invoke his jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1860 apparently cannot be sustained for such reasons alone.
The second part of the order which relates to the registration of list of 93 members under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 has also been seriously challenged on behalf of the petitioners.
Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the prescribed authority on 26.4.2011 has not been adverted, inasmuch as a categorical finding was returned by the prescribed authority to hold election on the basis of list of 130 members submitted by Vijay Narayan Tiwari, as is referred to in the order of the prescribed authority, dated 18.12.1987. It is stated that the subsequent order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 23.7.2011 fails to carry out the direction contained in the order of the prescribed authority to that extent. It is also submitted that in order to obviate the difficulty caused in determining list of members and raising of successive disputes in that regard from time to time the legislature thought it appropriate to amend the Act of 1860 by inserting Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Section 4-B of the Act, as introduced by way of amendment in the year 2013, reads as under:-
"4-B(1) At the time of registration/renewal of a society, list of members of General Body of that society shall be filed with the Registrar mentioning the name, father's name, address and occupation of the members. The Registrar shall examine the correctness of the list of members of the General Body of such society on the basis of the register of members of the General Body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank pass-book of the society.
(2) If there is any change in the list of members of the General Body of the society referred to in sub-section (1), on account of induction, removal, registration or death of any member, a modified list of members of General Body, shall be filed with the Registrar, within one month from the date of change.
(3) The list of members of the General Body to be filed with the Registrar under this section shall be signed by two-office-bearers and two executive members of the society."
It is sought to be urged on behalf of petitioners that by virtue of Section 4-B, the Assistant Registrar is required to examine the correctness of the list of members of the General Body of such society on the basis of register of members of the General Body and minutes thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank pass-book of the society. It is submitted that the Assistant Registrar has failed to advert to the considerations statutorily prescribed in Section 4-B of the Act of 1860 while determining the list of members of the society. Submission is that the Assistant Registrar has failed to independently examine the issue of membership with reference to the factors enumerated in Section 4-B and, therefore, the order of the Assistant Registrar is unsustainable. It is also urged that so far as the earlier orders passed by the authorities are concerned there is otherwise non-consideration of the order of the prescribed authority, dated 26.4.2011. Submission is that no independent material in support of the claim of membership of 93 persons has been placed on record before the Assistant Registrar, nor the Assistant Registrar has returned any finding in that regard based upon consideration of such materials and, therefore, there is a failure on part of the Assistant Registrar to exercise his jurisdiction vested by Section 4-B of the Act of 1860.
On behalf of respondents, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that the list of 130 members, which has been referred to in the order of the prescribed authority, dated 26.4.2011, has to be necessarily discarded as there is a serious dispute with regard to existence of such a list which has also been noticed by the prescribed authority in his order itself. It is also urged that subsequent orders of the Assistant Registrar also noticed the fact that no undisputed list of 130 members existed on record and that is why the Assistant Registrar while passing the order dated 23.7.2011 restricted the membership to 93 persons only. It is also argued that once the elections were conducted in the year 2011 on the basis of order dated 23.7.2011 and the challenge laid to the order of the Assistant Registrar has failed with no relief being granted in the writ petition, filed against such order, it would not be open for the petitioners to challenge such order, nor the Assistant Registrar can go behind such order, and he has committed no illegality in referring to and relying upon the list of 93 admitted members. A division bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 355 of 2019 has also been placed before the Court in order to submit that while exercising powers under Section 4-B of the Act of 1860, the admitted list of members are not liable to be reopened and only subsequent changes made therein including deletion or admission of new members alone are required to be examined by the Assistant Registrar. It is in this context that the controversy raised in the present writ petition needs to be examined.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record. While noticing the facts of the present case, this Court has already noticed that before the Assistant Registrar there were claims of subsequent elections held in the year 2014, 2016 and 2017, by the rival parties, and the Assistant Registrar was expected to decide legality of such elections before holding that the term of outgoing committee has expired and thereby invoke his jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The specific plea of elections, allegedly set up by the respondents and also by the petitioner, noticed by this Court in the writ petition no. 35505 of 2018, decided on 26.10.2018, was required to have been dealt with by the Assistant Registrar. There is a complete non-consideration of such plea of elections. The finding contained in the order of Assistant Registrar that no elections have been held after 2011 is not liable to be accepted. The Assistant Registrar would clearly not be justified in proceeding to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1860. The part of the order whereby jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1860 has been invoked by the Assistant Registrar, therefore, must fail.
In the facts of the present case, there is also a serious dispute with regard to membership of the society and consequently an issue arises as to who all would constitute the electoral college of the society. According to petitioners, the list of 130 members recognized by the prescribed authority in his order of 1987, which has been reiterated in the subsequent order of prescribed authority, dated 26.4.2011, could not have been ignored. The list of 130 members is however disputed by the respondents on the ground that no such list existed on record and in support of such contention reliance is placed upon the observations contained in the order of the prescribed authority.
The order of the prescribed authority, dated 18.12.1987 is a short order and appears to have been passed on the basis of some settlement which has been arrived at between the parties. The order of the prescribed authority, dated 18.12.1987, reads as under:-
"सम्बन्धित वाद के निस्तारण के बावत उभय पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्तओं की बहस सुना एवं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध कागजातों का अवलोकन किया। पक्षों ने अदालत को अवगत कराया कि अब College Management के बावत् पक्षों के बीच कोई विवाद नहीं है। पहले Membership को लेकर पक्षों के बीच विवाद था लेकिन अब इस विषय पर स्थिति बहुत ही स्पष्ट है। स्वयं इतर पक्ष ने स्वीकार किया कि कुल 130 सदस्यों की सूची जो विजय नरायन द्वारा प्रेषित की गयी है, वह सही है तथा बहुमत उन्ही का है। इतर पक्ष ने यह भी स्वीकार किया कि कुल 130 सदस्यों द्वारा निर्मित कमेटी उन्हें मान्य है। इनके द्वारा प्रबन्ध संचालन भी उन्हें मान्य है। इस तरह से पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध कागजातों के आधार पर इस निर्णय पर पहुँचा जाता है कि अब उ०मा०विद्यालय नेवढ़िया जौनपुर के अध्यक्ष श्री उदरेज एवं प्रबन्धक श्री विजय नरायन तिवारी घोषित किये जाते है। कुल 130 सदस्यों की कमेटी भी वैध घोषित की जाती है। इस कमेटी द्वारा पदाधिकारी जो समप्रति है या घोषित किये जायेंगे व भी वैध माने जायेंगे।
तदनुसार आदेश का क्रियान्वयन हो वाद आ०का० पत्रावली द०द० हो। आदेश की एक प्रति स० रजिस्ट्रार को प्रषित हो।"
According to petitioners, the list of 130 members is an enclosure to this order whereas the respondent states that no such list exists or is enclosed with the order. The Court need not enter into the factual issues as to whether the list allegedly annexed alongwith Annexure 3 is a part of the order of prescribed authority in view of the serious dispute on facts raised by the parties. Nevertheless, the order of SDM is not in dispute which does refer to a list of 130 members submitted by Vijay Narayan Tiwari and the fact that such list of 130 members was accepted by the parties. The subsequent order of the prescribed authority dated 26.4.2011 notices the dispute regarding the list of 130 members but in the operative portion of the order a specific direction has been issued to conduct elections on the basis of surviving members from the list of 130 members and 93 members. The operative portion contained in the order of the prescribed authority is not in issue. The subsequent order of the Assistant Registrar, dated 23.7.2011, proceeded to determine the list of 93 members and the elections were also held in the year 2011, accordingly. It is true that a writ petition filed against such order has been disposed of in terms of the order passed in the writ petition relating to constitution of managing committee of the educational institution, but there is apparently no consideration on merits with regard to compliance of the direction contained in the order of the SDM, dated 26.4.2011. The subsequent order of the Assistant Registrar primarily proceeds upon the list of members finalized on 23.7.2011 and also the fact that writ petition filed against such order has been disposed of without interfering with such order. The disposal of the writ petition, in view of the order passed in the leading writ petition relating to committee of management cannot be construed as an approval of the order of Assistant Registrar dated 23.7.2011. It is true that the term of the elected committee being three years, the order has substantially lost its relevance, but when it comes to determination of list of valid members, all aspects relating to membership would have to be examined. The order of the prescribed authority acknowledging the list of 130 members, therefore, cannot be brushed aside without there being any independent consideration with regard to claim of such members. Even the list of 93 members, which has been accepted by the Assistant Registrar, merely proceeds on the premise that previous elections were held from the list of such members. This may be a relevant fact but the Assistant Registrar cannot be absolved from undertaking the statutory exercise expected of him in terms of Section 4-B of the Act of 1860 when there is a serious challenge to the membership of the society. It is apparently to get over such disputes that Section 4-B has been inserted by way of amendment and this is a fit case in which the Assistant Registrar ought to have called for the original records and determined the list of members before registering the list of 93 members. The order of the Assistant Registrar is absolutely silent with regard to the factors specified in Section 4-B even with regard to the list of 93 persons which has been accepted by him. Apart from the fact that such members had participated in the last elections, there is no other material supporting their claim of membership. Section 4-B statutorily mandates the Assistant Registrar to refer to the original records to examine the correctness of the list of members of General Body of such society on the basis of the register of members of the General Body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank pass-book of the society. The order of the Assistant Registrar is absolutely silent with regard to examination of claim of membership with reference to the statutory factors enumerated in Section 4-B. In a given case where the membership is not disputed, it is always open for the Assistant Registrar to rely upon the list of undisputed members who have participated in previous elections, but in a case where claim of membership is seriously disputed and the orders of the prescribed authority are open to interpretation, the safest course for the Assistant Registrar would be to examine the original records and return an independent finding with regard to claim of membership. So far as the division bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 355 of 2019, relied upon by the respondents are concerned, this Court finds that the observations made therein were in the context of facts of that case as the previous elections were held on the basis of 63 members and there was apparently no serious challenge laid to it. In the facts of the present case, however, such is not the case. The election of the year 2011 held on the basis of 93 members was challenged and there is no apparently no adjudication on merits of the claim. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the direction issued to constitute the managing committee of the educational institution. A special appeal is reportedly pending. Technically the respondents may be justified in asserting that no interference has been made by this Court in the order of the Assistant Registrar, but such disposal cannot be construed as an act of approval of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar. The subsequent dispute of membership of society, therefore, will have to be resolved in accordance with law. The disposal of the writ petition in the year 2013, therefore, will not foreclose the claim of petitioners, nor would it absolve the Assistant Registrar from the statutory responsibility imposed upon him under Section 4-B of the Act of 1860.
In light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds that the order passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, dated 24th December, 2019, directing the list of 93 members to be registered under Section 4-B also cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
Parties shall appear before the Assistant Registrar on 17.3.2020 alongwith all documents relating to claim of membership of the society. Original records relating to membership would be produced by both the parties with a right to the other side to inspect the same. It would be open for the Assistant Registrar to take note of the previous orders and to rely upon undisputed positions emerging on record, but contentious issues raised with reference to original records produced before him by the parties would be dealt with in accordance with law, particularly in keeping with Section 4-B of the Act of 1860. Such consideration would be made within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties. The Assistant Registrar will also examine the validity of plea of election set up by the parties while passing such order. The management of the society, as is continuing on date, would be allowed to continue till a fresh order is passed in terms of the directions aforesaid.