COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT CHAUDHARY CHOTU RAM POST GRADUATE COLLEGE MUZAFFARNAGAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, learned counselfor the caveator Shri Sudhir Agarwal appeared and accepted notice on behalf of Ved Pal Singh. The caveator was directed to be impleaded as respondent No. 5 in the writ petition. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the learned counsel for petitioners, learned standing counsel and learned counsel for the caveator have agreed that the petition be decided finally at this stage.

(2.) Chaudhary Chotu Ram Post Graduate College, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as the College) is affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, State Government in exercise of powers under Section 58(1) of U.P. State University Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) served a show cause notice on the management of the College as to why authorised controller may not be appointed to manage the affairs of the college for the irregularities committed by the management as mentioned in the notice. The notice dated 3-2-1995 has been filed as Annexure- 3 to the writ petition. In this notice as many as ten grounds for taking action under Section 58(1) of the Act have been shown which relate mainly to financial matters. The State Government simultaneously also passed an order under Section 58(2) of the Act suspending the management during the pendency of proceedings. The order has been filed as Annexure- 5 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, suspending the management and appointing Collector, Muzaffarnagar as authorised controller, petitioners have approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the committee of management was elected on 22-12-1994 with Shri Samay Singh as President and Shri Ishwar Singh Mallik as Secretary. This newly elected committee of management could hardly function for a month and the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity in arbitrary manner. It has also been submitted that under Section 58(2) of the Act, the State Government is required to record reasons for passing orders which means that order should be self-explanatory. However, the impugned order contains only conclusions and not the reasons. Thus the order is violative of the principles of natural justice as well as the mandatory provisions of Section 58(2) of the Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that no reason has been recorded showing necessity of the immediate action. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on certain judgments of this court as well the Apex Court.