JUDGMENT This Rule is directed against an order of the Vice-Chancellor, University of Calcutta, dated 7.1.77 dissolving the governing body of the three colleges, Surendranath College (Day), Surendranath Evening College and Surendranath College for Women, and appointing Mr. Mukul Gopal Mukherjee as the Administrator of the said three colleges. 2. On 2nd, 3rd and 4th January, 1974, the Inspector of Colleges inspected the three colleges and on 3.4.75 the reports were submitted. On 27.8.75 the Inspector of Colleges wrote to the college authorities enclosing reports and questionnaires. Thereafter on 13.12.75 detailed replies were given by the Secretary of the College Council to the Inspector of Colleges. On 17.3.76 there was a meeting of the College Committee of the University. It considered the inspection reports for the second time and it requested the Syndicate to arrange for another inspection of the colleges at an early date. The colleges 'were asked to keep 10 documents and books ready for inspection. On 11.8.76 as directed by the Pro-Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs the Inspector of Colleges wrote to the Secretary of the colleges to produce or cause to be produced at the time of the inspection of the colleges certain documents. In that letter it was intimated that a team of Inspectors appointed by the Syndicate would visit the colleges on 24.8.76 at 12 noon and would continue the inspection. On 18.8.76 the Secretary wrote a letter to the Inspector of Colleges stating that the President of the Surendranath College Council was out of Calcutta and the matter could not be taken up for proper consideration until he returned. In the meantime the Inspector of Colleges was requested to send the resolution of the Syndicate. In reply to the said letter of the Secretary, on 23.8.76 the Inspector of Colleges informed that the inspection would be held on 1.9.76 instead of 24.8.76 as it was previously scheduled. On 1.9.76 the inspecting team was received by the Principal of the said College, who, however, refused inspection and/or to show any papers/records etc. and did not allow the team to visit the library and laboratories on the ground that he had been so instructed by the Secretary of the Surendranath College Council. The inspection with respect to other two colleges was also refused. On 10.9.76 a resolution was passed by the Syndicate. and did not allow the team to visit the library and laboratories on the ground that he had been so instructed by the Secretary of the Surendranath College Council. The inspection with respect to other two colleges was also refused. On 10.9.76 a resolution was passed by the Syndicate. It resolved as follows: That the authorities of the Surendranath College, Surendranath Evening College and Surendranath College for Women be directed under ordinance 64, of the Calcutta University First Ordinance 1966, to produce or cause to be produced within three days of the receipt of this directives as specified in the notice, dt. 11.8.76 issued by the Inspector of Colleges, under the direction of Pro-Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs on 30.7. 76, books, papers and documents before the Vice-Chancellor. Resolved further that the authorities of the said Colleges be warned that non-compliance with the above directive may lead to serious consequences for which they themselves will singularly be responsible. Resolved that as there is cause for serious apprehension of gross financial, academic and other irregularities in the administration of the said Colleges, the Syndicate delegates under section 55-2(b) of the C.U. Act, 1966, its powers and duties in connection with the directive issued to the said colleges under Chapters IX and X of the C.U. First Ordinances, 1966, with particular reference to Ordinance 64(1) and 64(2) to the Vice-Chancellor for prompt action. 3. On 14.9.76 the Inspector of Colleges in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution passed by the Syndicate issued a directive to the Secretary, Surendranath College to produce within three days from the receipt of the said directive certain books, papers and documents before the Vice Chancellor. Against the said directive the petitioners moved this Court on 17.9.76 and obtained a Rule and an interim order of injunction upto 15.11.76. Thereafter, on 24.12.76 a show cause notice was issued by the Inspector of Colleges calling upon the petitioners to show cause within ten days from the date of the receipt of the said show cause notice why steps should not be taken against the said colleges under Chapter IX, particularly, Ordinance 64(2) of the Calcutta University First Ordinances, 1966, viz. why the Governing Body of the colleges should not be dissolved and the management of the colleges taken over by the University in such manner as might appear to it to be fit and proper. why the Governing Body of the colleges should not be dissolved and the management of the colleges taken over by the University in such manner as might appear to it to be fit and proper. The petitioners, however, did not reply to the said show cause and subsequently on 7.1.77 the impugned order was passed by which the Governing Body of the three colleges was dissolved and an Administrator was appointed. 4. Mr. Sen, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the University has got no power to ask for the production of the documents referred to in those two notices dated 11.8.76 and 14.9.76. According to Mr. Sen under Ordinance 64, Calcutta University First Ordinances, 1966, there must be a satisfaction of the Syndicate on the basis of an enquiry that the colleges failed to maintain proper standards of teaching, or the affairs of the colleges are being managed improperly to the detriment of the college or institution as an enducational institution, and in such a case the Syndicate may issue to the Governing Body of the Colleges such directives as it may think proper. In the instant case there was no such enquiry and no material was placed before the Syndicate to come to a proper satisfaction as envisaged in Ordinance 64. Moreover, there is nothing in the Act or Statute or Ordinance by which the University can compel production of large number of old documents which are not at all relevant for the annual inspection of the colleges under Ordinance 68. 5. Section 4 of the Act lays down powers of the University. Section 4(10) provides that the University shall have the power to take over temporarily the management of any college or institution affiliated to, or recognised by, the University other than a Government college or a Government sponsored college or institution, in order to ensure that proper standards of teaching, training or instruction are maintained therein. Section 4(11) also gives power to the University to dissolve the Governing Body of any Affiliated, Constituent or Professional College or institution, other than a Government College or a Government Sponsored College, and, pending the reconstitution of the Governing Body thereof in such manner as may be prescribed, to appoint an Administrator or an ad-hoc Government Body. Section 4(11) also gives power to the University to dissolve the Governing Body of any Affiliated, Constituent or Professional College or institution, other than a Government College or a Government Sponsored College, and, pending the reconstitution of the Governing Body thereof in such manner as may be prescribed, to appoint an Administrator or an ad-hoc Government Body. Under Ordinance 64 it is not at all necessary in every case that for the purpose of arriving satisfaction of the Syndicate, there should be enquiry. Apart from enquiry, the Syndicate can issue such directives; if there are proper materials before the Syndicate. I have carefully gone through the previous reports of the Inspector of Colleges and I am satisfied from those reports that there are ample materials to show that the affairs of the said colleges are being managed improperly. So, In my view, under clause 1(b) of Ordinance 64, the Syndicate has power to issue such directions as it may think fit. It is not disputed that the petitioners did not comply with such directions and did not produce the documents asked for. Moreover, when the inspecting team visited the said colleges, the Principal of the said colleges did not allow the team to inspect and also did not produce any documents or relevant papers for inspection. Before dissolving the Governing Body a show cause notice was issued in terms of section 64(3). Even then the petitioners did not reply to the said show-cause notice and ultimately the Governing Body' was dissolved and an Administrator appointed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the University has rightly exercised its powers and there has been no illegal assumption of powers or jurisdiction or illegal exercise of powers in dissolving the Governing Body of the said three colleges and appointing an Administrator or issuing directives for production of certain documents. Accordingly, this Rule is discharged. 'There will be no order for costs.