RAMDEI VIDYA VARDHINI PARISHAD Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Chanda Rani, Manager of Ramdei Vidya Vardhini Parishad, Muzaffarnagar, has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the State Government dated 14th June, 1974, appointing an Authorised Controller under Section 16 -D(5 -A) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act for taking over management of the institution including the management of land, buildings, funds and other assets belonging to the institution.

(2.) RAM Devi Vidya. Vardhini Parishad runs Ram Dei Inter College, Sikka Silavar, of which Smt. Chanda Rani is the Manager. The Director of Education U.P., Allahabad, sent a notice to the Manager which was received by her, on 6th August, 1973, Under Section 16 -D(2) of the Act, directing the management to remove the defects and deficiencies found in the management of the institution. The management sent a reply to the said notice and asserted that some of the defects were of such a nature which could not be removed within the period of one month as required by the Director. The Manager of the College further requested the Director of Education to supply information and material on the basis of which the charges were framed against the management. On 5th September, 1973, the Manager of the College sent a detailed reply in response to the notice issued under Section 16 -D(2) of the Act. The Director of Education by hit letter dated 27th February, 1974, informed the management that its explanation was not found satisfactory and he further directed the management to show cause within ten days why recommendation may not be made to the Government for taking action under Section 16 -D(5 -A) against the Petitioner. The management by its letter dated 6th March, 1974, submitted a detailed reply and asserted that there was no exceptional or special circumstance to warrant action against the, management under that provision. It appears that the Director made recommendation to the Government, thereupon the State Government by its order dated 14th June, 1974, took action under Section 16 -D(5 -A) of the Act and appointed Laxmi Chand Acharya as authorised controller and vested him with all the powers of the management of the institution to the exclusion of the Petitioner or any such person.

(3.) IN the instant case Paragraph 3 of the impugned Government order makes reference to the show cause notices issued to the. Petitioner under Section 16 -D(2) and (3) of the Act and the explanation submitted by the management of the institution and thereafter the order states that on perusal of the explanation of the, Petitioner and the report of the Director of Education it was clear that the illegalities and irregularities mentioned in the show cause notice were still present in the institution, therefore it was fully proved that a number of illegalities prevailed in the institution as a result of which administration of the institution could not be carried on. It is noteworthy that the impugned order does not refer to any particular illegality or irregularity, instead it contains a general observation to that effect. The order does not deal with the Petitioner's explanation as to show and in what respect its explanation was not acceptable. The order further does not disclose any reasons to show how any exceptional and special circumstances existed compelling the Government to divest the management of its right to administer and manage the institution. In a matter like the present one where the State Government is required to act in a quasi judicial manner and is required to record reasons making out special ease for taking over the right of the Petitioner, it is incumbent on the State Government to deal with the charges, irregularities and the explanation furnished by the management in an objective manner with a speaking order pointing out the exceptional or special circumstances which may persuade the State Government to take the extreme action against the management of the institution by appointing Authorised Controller under Section 16 -D(5 -A) of the Act and investing him with all the powers of management. The impugned order does not set out the charge nor it sets out any reasons, it merely contains State Government's conclusions that the explanation submitted by the Petitioner was unsatisfactory and that it was necessary to appoint an Authorised Controller. In the circumstances the impugned order is vitiated and is not sustainable in law.