JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - Chowdhary Chhotu Ram Degree College is an educational institution which imparts education to degree classes. It was affiliated to the Meerut University prior to the endorcement of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973. The management of the College is carried on by a Registered Society. Now the management of the Degree College is run by the Committee of Management elected in accordance with the Constitution of the Society. The term of the Committee of Management was to expire in 1972 and election of fresh office hearers was to take place, but certain disputes arose relating to the election of office bearers. The Vice-Chancellor of the Meerut University made a reference to the Chancellor as a result of which the Chancellor issued the order dated 29-3-1972 in exercise of his powers under Statute 7.33 of the First Statutes of the Meerut University suspending the Committee of Management and appointing District Inspector of Schools as Administrator to run and manage the affairs of the College. Aggrieved the Managing Committee and Ved Pal Singh, its Secretary filed the present petition challenging the validity of the order of the Chancellor. 2. During the pendency of the petition the term of the Administrator expired and thereafter the petitioner filed an application in this Court stating therein that the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to act as an Administrator beyond one year from the date of assumption of his office. During the pendency of that application the petitioner was served with a notice dated 7-2-1974 from the State Government under Section 47 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why action under Section 58 of the Act be not taken against them. Along with the show-cause notice the petitioners were further served with a copy of the order of the State Government dated 7-2-1974 issued under sub-sec. (2) of Section 58 of the Act suspending the Committee of Management pending enquiry in respect of matters mentioned in the show-cause notice. The petitioners thereupon got the writ petition amended with a prayer that the show-cause notice dated 7-2-1974 as well as the order of suspension issued by the State Government be quashed. 3. (2) of Section 58 of the Act suspending the Committee of Management pending enquiry in respect of matters mentioned in the show-cause notice. The petitioners thereupon got the writ petition amended with a prayer that the show-cause notice dated 7-2-1974 as well as the order of suspension issued by the State Government be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there was no dispute with respect to the right claimed by different persons to be lawful office bearers of the Managing Committee of the Degree College and further it had not affected the smooth and orderly administration of the College, therefore, the State Government had no jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice. The averments contained in the petitioners supplementary affidavit show that suit No. 940 of 1972 filed by one Varun Singh is pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar. The subject-matter of the suit is validity of the election of office bearers and their right to hold the office of the members of the Committee of Management. In the face of this assertion it is difficult to accept the contention that there was no dispute pending claiming right to be lawful office bearers. But even if there be no such dispute pending it is open to the petitioners to raise this question in their reply to show-cause notice. If on enquiry the State Government is satisfied that there was no dispute with respect to the right claimed by different persons to be lawful office bearers of the Managing Committee and that such dispute does not affect the smooth and orderly administration of the College, in that event the State Government may not take any further action. In this view of the matter the petitioner is not entitled to any relief against the show-cause notice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner then challenged the validity of the order of suspension the ground that it does not contain any reasons. Section 58 (2) lays down that if the State Government while issuing a notice under Section 57 is of opinion "for reasons to be recorded" that immediate action is necessary in the interest of the College, if may suspend the management which shall thereupon cease to function and the State Government may make such arrangement as it thinks proper for managing the affairs of the College and its property till further proceedings are completed. This provision confers power on the State Government to suspend the management and entrust the right of management to some other authority or individual pending enquiry under Section 57 of the Act. The Legislature, however, intended that before the State Government could exercise its power of suspension pending enquiry, it must record its reasons to show that why immediate action was necessary. The Legislature made express provision for recording of reasons with a view to safeguard the interest of management and to ensure that the power of suspension pending enquiry was not abused on extraneous consideration. Reasons are quite different from conclusions. Reasons must make out the grounds on the basis of which immediate action is considered necessary to safeguard the interest of the College. Unless the order of suspension complies with this requirement of law as laid down in sub-sec. (2) of Section 58 of the Act, the order of suspension cannot be sustained in law. 5. In the instant case the impugned older of suspension states that whereas proceedings are being taken under Section 57 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, against the Committee of Management of Chowdhary Chhotu Ram Degree College, Muzaffarnagar, and, whereas dispute among several persons is going on since long in respect of the validly elected office bearers of the Committee of Management of the sad College, the management of the Degree College is adversely affected, therefore, it is necessary to take immediate action. The order thereafter states that the Governor in exercise of his power under Section 58 (2) of the Act suspends the Committee of Management of the said College and appoints Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Muzaffarnagar to carry on the administration of the College. The order of the State Government does not contain any reasons, instead it contains conclusion. How the dispute about the office bearers was affecting the smooth and orderly administration of the College is not indicated in the order nor the State Government has recorded any reasons as to why it was necessary to take immediate action. The validity of the order must be considered in the backgrounds of the facts which have been stated earlier. How the dispute about the office bearers was affecting the smooth and orderly administration of the College is not indicated in the order nor the State Government has recorded any reasons as to why it was necessary to take immediate action. The validity of the order must be considered in the backgrounds of the facts which have been stated earlier. Admittedly the Management of the College was in the hands of District Inspector of Schools since April, 1972 and, therefore, at the time when the impugned order was passed the Management of the College was not being run by the elected office bearers or by the Committee of Management, instead the affairs of the College were being managed by the District Inspector of Schools who had been appointed Administrator by the Chancellor in 1972. Moreover, a perusal of paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the supplementary affidavit of Ved Pal Singh makes it amply clear that there was only one suit viz., suit No. 940 of 1972, which had been filed by Varun Singh and in that suit he had prayed for the issue of an injunction restraining the Committee to hold the election of its office bearers and obtained an ex-parte injunction but later on that was vacated, with the result the election if office bearers e took place and there was no injunction orders restraining the office bearers from functioning in their office. A mere pendency of suit by itself challenging the validity of the election of office bearers could not be a ground to issue order of suspension pending enquiry unless something else was there to show that the Committee of Management was not able to carry on the administration of the College due to other reasons. The State Government has further not recorded any reasons as to why it was necessary to take immediate action to suspend the right of the management pending enquiry under Section 57 of the Act. 6. In view of the above discussion the petition is partly allowed and the order of the State Government dated 7-2-1974 suspending the right of the office bearers of the Committee of Management to manage the College pending enquiry under Section 57 is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to recover their costs from the State Government.