Judgment Madan Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This is an application Hinder Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of quashing an order passed by the President of the Bihar Sankrit Education Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) dissolving the Managing Committee of the Radha Raman Sanskrit High School and appointing an Ad Hoc Committee in its place. 2. The present application has been filed through the secretary of the Managing Committee. It is said therein that the aforesaid school was managed by the Bihar Sanskrit Association set up by the Government of Bihar in the Education Department but from 1966 after the passing of the Kameshwar Singh (Darbhanga) Sanskrit Vishwa-vidyalay Act, 1960 (Bihar Act VI of 1960) the school came under the supervision and control of the Board and the school receives aid from Government. It is said that the school was functioning in a normal way and there was no complaint against the administration of the school by the Managing Committee, that one Payahari Saran Singh was the Secretary of the said school and he was removed from the post in accordance with a resolution of the Managing Committee dated the 18th of September. 1971 and the petitioner started working as the Secretary from that date and is still in office, that Payahari Saran is a close relation of Shri Ram Padarath Sharma, Secretary of the Board and in order to oblige him the Secretary of the Board sent a wire to the Headmaster directing that Paya-hari Saran would continue to function as the Secretary pending an enquiry and the decision in respect of the election of the new Secretary. He also sent a letter dated the 6th of November, 1971 to the Headmaster to follow the directions contained in the telegram. Thereafter he sent another telegram to the Headmaster intimating that he was reaching there on the 7th of Nov.. 1971 for enquiry and directing him to inform all the members. The Headmaster received the aforesid telegram on the 8th of November, 1971. Meanwhile, however, the Secretary of the Board, respondent No. 3, had gone there, talked to the Headmaster and the Teachers Representative and had gone away. On account of the late receipt of the telegram other members of the Managing Committee had no information or knowledge of the arrival of the Secretary of the Board. Meanwhile, however, the Secretary of the Board, respondent No. 3, had gone there, talked to the Headmaster and the Teachers Representative and had gone away. On account of the late receipt of the telegram other members of the Managing Committee had no information or knowledge of the arrival of the Secretary of the Board. Thereafter the petitioner received the impugned letter dated the 30th of December, 1972 by which the Managing Committee was dissolved and an Ad Hoc Committee appointed. Hence this application. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, It is said therein that the present petitioner is not the secretary of the school, that he was merely a member of the Managing Committee in his capacity as a Guardians representative but his membership had terminated in November, 1970 and was not entitled to file the present application on behalf of the Managing Committee. Next, it is said that the school was functioning smoothly under the Secretaryship of Payahari Saran until the 18th of September. 1971 on which date a meeting had been convened by the aforesaid Secretary within the school premises to nominate certain members of the committee in place of the present petitioner who had ceased to be a Guardians Representative and in place of Ram Nagina Missir who had continued as Teachers Representative for more than nine years. At this meeting a reported defalcation of funds by the Headmaster was also to be considered but this meeting could not take place as the Headmaster had locked the office room and gone away. It is, therefore, false to say that the petitioner was elected Secretary in any meeting held on that date. Next, it is denied that Payahari Saran was in any manner related to the Secretary of the Board. It is said that the Headmaster had started disobeying the orders of the Secretary Payahari Saran and a serious situation had arisen on this account and the police had to be called in, and Payahari Saran had made a report in respect of these matters to the Secretary of the Board on the 14th of October. 1971. Hence the telegram was sent to the Headmaster regarding the continuance of Payahar! Saran as the Secretary pending the enquiry. Hence also the letter to that effect dated the 6th of November. 1971. 1971. Hence the telegram was sent to the Headmaster regarding the continuance of Payahar! Saran as the Secretary pending the enquiry. Hence also the letter to that effect dated the 6th of November. 1971. It is also stated that the Secretary on his arrival at the school on the 7th of November. 1971 had called Durga Dayal Misra, the present petitioner Paya-hari Saran, Secretary, and all the other local members but none of them were available except the Headmaster and the teachers of the school. Enquiry was made and the statements of the Headmaster and the teachers were taken. The Secretary of the Board then submitted a report on the 9th of November, 1971 (Annexure A) to the Deputy Director of Education and recommended for the constitution of an Ad Hoc Committee After consideration of this report the impugned order was passed. It is also said that there was danger of breach of peace and proceedings under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been started in respect of the dispute in the school. That was another reason for dissolving the Managing Committee. It is further said that a notice (Annexure B) asking the Secretary of the school to show cause was served and the Secretary Payahari Saran had sent his reply on the 23rd of December, 1971 (Annexure C). It is also said that the election of the petitioner as the Secretary of the School had not been approved by the Board although a resolution (Annexure D) of the Managing Committee of the school requesting for such approval had been sent to the Board. The petitioner had made a representation to the Government by a letter dated the 4th of November, 1971 (Annexure F) in which also he had prayed for the approval by the Government of his election but such approval was not given and he was never recognised as the Secretary of the School. 4. Another counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 who is one of the members of the aforesaid Ad Hoc Committee appointed by the Board. 4. Another counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 who is one of the members of the aforesaid Ad Hoc Committee appointed by the Board. He has also supported the stand taken by respondents 1 to 5 and stated that no meeting of the school was held on the date alleged and the petitioner was never elected the Secretary nor had the previous Secretary Payahari Saran been removed and that the present petitioner has ceased to be a Guardians Representative and could not be elected the Secretary. This respondent claims that he is the founder of the aforesaid school and he alone had donated the entire funds which was more than Rs. 50,000/-in cash and 7 bighas of land for the establishment of the said school, that he is a Life Member thereof, that he was the Secretary of the school till 1966 when the Headmaster, respondent No. 7 had conspired with others and got him removed from the Secretaryship after which Payahari Saran had been elected that Payahari Saran had also made several complaints against the Headmaster regarding misappropriation of funds and had convened the meeting for the 18th of September, 1971 but the Headmaster had locked the school and the meeting could not be held, that no other meeting was held, that the Headmaster had refused to obey the Secretary, that there were proceedings under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the two groups led by Payahari Saran and the present petitioner and in view of all these a show cause notice was sent and an enquiry was held and the present Managing Committee was dissolved and an Ad Hoc committee appointed. A copy of the show cause notice has been attached as Annexure A to this counter-affidavit and the reply sent by the Secretary as Annexure B. 5. The Headmaster, respondent No. 7, has also filed a counter-affidavit in which he has made allegations against Payahari Saran and supported the stand taken by the petitioner. It is not necessary to state at length the contents thereof. 6. A supplementary affidavit by way of reply to the counter-affidavit filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 5 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is denied therein that the petitioner had ceased to be the Guardians Representative in the year 1970. his ward being still a student of the school. 6. A supplementary affidavit by way of reply to the counter-affidavit filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 5 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is denied therein that the petitioner had ceased to be the Guardians Representative in the year 1970. his ward being still a student of the school. It is also said that Payahari Saran had been removed by a resolution of the Managing Committee passed by two-thirds majority of the total membership. It is denied that the Headmaster was disobeying that order of the secretary. The fact that a proceeding under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was started has been accepted. The show cause notice to Payahari Saran is said to be mala fide. 7. The points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the order passed by the Board is arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Secondly, it is urged that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Managing Committee had not been given an opportunity to be heard. I must state at the outset that neither of these points is acceptable. 8. On the first point it has been said that there is no law which entitles the Board to pass the order in question and. therefore, it is arbitrary. In this connection I would like to state that the case was argued by the petitioner as also on behalf of the respondents on the assumption that the Bihar High Schools (Constitution, Powers and Functions of Managing Committee) Rules. 1964 were applicable. After the end of the argument, however. I found that the management of educational institutions imparting Sanskrit education was the subject matter of the Kameshwar Singh (Dar-bhanga) Sanskrit Vishwavidyalay Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The parties were heard further and the Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5 then produced the relevant notifications in this behalf. According to both parties now it is admitted that the aforesaid Rules have no application to the facts of the present case. A supplementary affidavit was then filed by the petitioner in this behalf. The position of law as appears from the Act and the various notifications is as follows. According to both parties now it is admitted that the aforesaid Rules have no application to the facts of the present case. A supplementary affidavit was then filed by the petitioner in this behalf. The position of law as appears from the Act and the various notifications is as follows. That originally the Bihar Sanskrit Association set up by Government of Bihar by its Resolution No. 4124, dated the 11th of August, 1956 15th of January, 1957 had control over institutions imparting Sanskrit education and then came Act VI of 1960 aforesaid. Under Sec. 44 of this Act the Bihar Sanskrit Association was dissolved and its powers and duties were to be exercised by the University or the Board of Sanskrit Education, as the case may be in such manner as the State Government may direct. By notification No. 322 dated the 24th January, 1961 & Board of Sanskrit Education consisting of 15 persons was constituted. According to clause 3 of this notification the Board of Sanskrit Education is to exercise control and superintendence over the recognised Sanskrit institutions imparting instructions only upto the Madhyama standard except tols Under Clause 7 of this notification the powers and functions of the Board are said to be those which have been conferred upon the Board by Government Notification No. 323 dated the 24th of January, 1961 and such other powers as may be determined by the State Government from time to time. Notification No. 323 of the 24th of January, 1961 lays down that the powers of control and superintendence conferred upon the Bihar Sanskrit Association in Government Resolution No. 4124, dated the llth of August, 1956 in respect of Sanskrit High Schools shall with effect from the 26th day of January. 1961, be exercised and performed by the Board of Sanskrit Education, Bihar, constituted in Government Resolution No. 322, dated 24th January, 1961. In another notification by the Government, bearing No. 1505, dated the 19th April. 1961, be exercised and performed by the Board of Sanskrit Education, Bihar, constituted in Government Resolution No. 322, dated 24th January, 1961. In another notification by the Government, bearing No. 1505, dated the 19th April. 1961 it was laid down that since the aforesaid Board had not been fully established and because the Inspector of Sanskrit Schools had not been appointed, an administrative vacuum had been created due to which difficulties were felt in the matter of exercise of powers and functions of the Board and in order to remove the aforesaid vacuum and difficulty the Government of Bihar in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 46 of the said Act directed the Director of Public Instruction, Bihar to exercise all the powers and functions of the Board pending the full establishment of the Board. The notification also directed that the Assistant Director of Education (Sanskrit) shall, pending the appointment of Inspector of Sanskrit Schools, function as the Secretary of the Board. It will thus appear that the powers of the Board were to be exercised by the Director of Public Instruction pending the full constitution of the Board and the powers of the Secretary of the Board were to be exercised by the Asstt. Director of Sanskrit Education. Another Notification No. 2749, dated the 23rd of August. 1963, was issued under Sec. 46 of the Act aforesaid and in partial modification of Notification No. 1505, dated the 19th of April. 1961. According to this notification all the powers and functions of the Board were to be exercised by Shri G. P. Dubey, Additional Director of Public Instruction vice the Director of Public Instruction, Bihar. Next came notification No. 753, dated the 19th of March. 1966 under Sec. 48 of the Act aforesaid in modification of the last notification mentioned above. Under this notification Shri G. P. Dubey, Director of the State Science Institute (Rajya Vigyan Sansthan) was directed to exercise all the powers of the Board. Thereafter came another Notification No. 1041, dated the 22nd of July. 1969 under which the State Government appointed the persons named therein as the President. Secretary and the Members of the Board of Sanskrit Education, Bihar, for a period of three years with effect from the date of the issue of the notification. 9. Thereafter came another Notification No. 1041, dated the 22nd of July. 1969 under which the State Government appointed the persons named therein as the President. Secretary and the Members of the Board of Sanskrit Education, Bihar, for a period of three years with effect from the date of the issue of the notification. 9. Looking at the various notifications it is thus quite clear that the powers of control and superintendence over the educational institutions imparting Sanskrit education vest in the Board of Sanskrit Education. The imugned order (Annexure 3) appears to have been issued at the direction of the President of the Board by the Secretary thereof- It appears that the Director of Public Instruction has been appointed the ex-officio President of the Board. It is the admitted case of the parties that no rules have been framed so far by the State Government in respect of the manner of the exercise of the powers of superintendence end control by the Board. There is thus no rule or law which can be said to have been violated in the present case. It may be noted in this connection that the aforesaid Board has all the powers which the Bihar Sanskrit Association originally had. It appears from the Notification No. 4124, dated the 11th of August. 1956 that one of the bodies constituting the Bihar Sanskrit Association was its Executive Body, namely, the Prabandh Samiti and the powers and duties of the aforesaid Samiti enumerated therein include taking of decisions in executive and organisational matters. Another body, a part of the Sanskrit Association, was the Sanskrit Examination Board which had the power to inspect the Sanskrit institutions and give necessary directions for their proper and efficient functioning. The Chairman of the Sanskrit Parishad was entitled to exercise all powers of the Prabandh Samiti when it was not in session and take all such steps as may be necessary for the furtherance of the aims and objects of the Association. The Secretary was to exercise his powers as the Chief Executive subject to the general control and supervision of the Vice Chairman. All these powers are thus now vested in the Board and its President. The Secretary was to exercise his powers as the Chief Executive subject to the general control and supervision of the Vice Chairman. All these powers are thus now vested in the Board and its President. There can thus be no ground in the absence of any rules to the contrary to hold that the President of the Board had no jurisdiction to pass an order dissolving the Managing Committee of a Sanskrit High School. The power of superintendence and control must be deemed to include this specific power in suitable circumstances. 10. In the circumstances of the present case it appears that there was a dispute between Payahari Saran and the petitioner, that each of them had a group behind himself, that there were complaints made by each other of embezzlement of funds and certain irregularities committed by the other. It appears that this had led to drawing up of proceedings under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There were allegations and counter-allegations in respect of the meeting supposed to have been held on the 18th of September. 1971 wherein Payahari Saran is said to have removed and the petitioner elected Secretary. In such circumstances the order passed by the Board superseding the Managing Committee in the interest of the institution cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable. 11. The only other point which remains to be considered is whether there has been a violation of any principles of natural justice. It appears that complaints had been received by the Board made by both parties, namely, Payahari Saran and the present petitioner in respect of what had happened an the 18th of September 1971. In that view of the matter the status quo was directed to be maintained by the telegram (Annexure 1) and the letter (Annexure 1/a) dated the 6th of November, 1971. The Secretary of the Board admittedly went to the School to hold an enquiry in pursuance of the telegram sent on the 7th of November. 1971. It is difficult to accept that the members of the Managing Committee had no knowledge of his arrival at the school. After all, the village where the school is situated is not a big place and it seems to me that the members of the Managing Committee purposely withheld themselves from appearing before the Secretary of the Board. 1971. It is difficult to accept that the members of the Managing Committee had no knowledge of his arrival at the school. After all, the village where the school is situated is not a big place and it seems to me that the members of the Managing Committee purposely withheld themselves from appearing before the Secretary of the Board. Next it appears that a notice to show cause addressed to the Secretary of the school was sent by the Board. This was received by Payahari Saran. It was not addressed to him by name. It was delivered to him it seems, because he was acting as the Secretary in spite of the alleged resolution of the Managing Committee removing him. Be that as it may, Payahari Saran as the Secretary had said in his reply that he had no objection to the Managing Committee being dissolved and an Ad hoc committee being appointed in its place. It is significant to mention in this connection that Payahari Saran himself has not been nominated as a member of the Ad hoc committee. It cannot, therefore, be said that he had an interest of his own in agreeing to the supersession of the Managing Committee. In the circumstances of the present case if the other members of the Managing Committee had chosen to make any representation they could have very well done so and taken part in the enquiry by the Secretary at the spot. The mere fact that they did not avail themselves of the opportunity cannot be said to be a ground for holding that they had no opportunity of having a say in the matter. The notice to show cause issued by the Board could not have been directed to each member of the Managing Committee individually. The Secretary of the Managing Committee represented the committee and a notice to show cause directed to him would be deemed to be sufficient notice to all members of the Managing Committee. The circumstances of this case prove beyond doubt that all the members of the Managing Committee must have been aware of every step taken in this connection. It cannot, therefore, be said that the show cause notice issued by the Board was of no effect and that there was a violation of the principle of natural justice on that account. The circumstances of this case prove beyond doubt that all the members of the Managing Committee must have been aware of every step taken in this connection. It cannot, therefore, be said that the show cause notice issued by the Board was of no effect and that there was a violation of the principle of natural justice on that account. In view of the non-recognition by the Board of the alleged new Secretary, namely, the petitioner, and in view of their order continuing Payahari Saran as the Secretary the notice issued to the Secretary and received by Payahari Saran was a sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice. There is thus no substance in the argument of learned counsel. 12. No other point having been raised and both the points raised having failed, there is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. There will however, be no order for costs.