COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this writ petition is that the order suspending the Committee of Management of the In stitution during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 58 (1) of the Act does not contain any reason as provided under Section 58 (2) of the Act.

(2.) THE Committee of Management was suspended on 2-7-1996 and on the same date, a show cause notice was issued to the Committee of Management. An authorised controller was appointed by the State Government and the District Magistrate, Unnao who was appointed as authorised Controller, who has taken over the charge on 4th July, 1996, much before the interim order passed by this court on 16th August, 1996. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners submitted a reply to the show cause notice and the enquiry has been more or less completed. THE State Government has yet to pass a final order.

(3.) A show cause notice dated 2nd July, 1996 indicated certain irregularities, mean ing thereby that the income of Rs. 20,000 per year as annual rent, has not been deposited in the account of College. The Manager, after September, 1995, has failed to dispose of the matters pertaining to the College as a result of which, the work of the College has become stand still. The pay ment of pension and funds etc. which deserve to be paid to the employees have not been paid and the descendants of persons under Dying in Harness has not been given service although the vacancy exists.