JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by an educational institution of Khurja, its managing committee and secretary. It is directed against an order of the Vice Chancellor dated September 19,1980 holding that the petitioner-society and its managing committee were not validly constituted and the third petitioner was not a duly chosen secretary and the order dated October 8, 1980, passed by the Vice Chancellor appointing an ad hoc managing committee in this college. 2. The principal ground of attack is that the Vice Chancellor was biased against the petitioners and consequently there has been a total failure of justice. 3. Dr. P.C. Gupta was the Vice-Chancellor who passed the impugned orders. The then Vice Chancellor having been appointed elsewhere, Dr. P.C. Gupta was appointed as the acting Vice Chancellor of the Meerut University. He remained the acting Vice-Chancellor from February 14, 1980 to April 14, 1980. On April 14, 1980, Dr. P.C. Gupta was appointed as an ad hoc Vice-Chancellor for a period of 6 months, i.e., till October 14, 1980. 4. Prior to his becoming the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. P.C. Gupta was the Principal of the petitioner's college. On October 16, 1977, the committee of management of the petitioner college served a charge sheet on Dr. P.C. Gupta and suspended him. The charges were of embezzlement and misappropriation of college funds and other serious irregularities. Dr. P.C. Gupta appealed to the Vice-Chancellor who revoked the suspension order. The committee of management went up to the Chancellor against the decision of the Vice-Chancellor. The Chancellor, by an order dated August 24, 1978, set aside the Vice-Chancellor's order and sent the matter of suspension of Dr. P.C. Gupta back to him for reconsideration. The then Vice-Chancellor considered the matter and on October 7, 1978, passed an order upholding the suspension of Dr. P.C. Gupta. 5. The petitioners allege that on April 24, 1978, Dr. P.C. Gupta tendered his resignation from the post of Principal of the college. The Committee of management accepted his resignation. Dr. P.C. Gupta, subsequently resiled and referred the matter to the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University, The Vice-Chancellor on May 18, 1978, revoked the resignation order. The petitioner committee of the management felt aggrieved and filed a representation before the Chancellor which is still pending. 6. The Committee of management accepted his resignation. Dr. P.C. Gupta, subsequently resiled and referred the matter to the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University, The Vice-Chancellor on May 18, 1978, revoked the resignation order. The petitioner committee of the management felt aggrieved and filed a representation before the Chancellor which is still pending. 6. The State Government on June 7, 1978, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner college under Section 57 (5) of the U.P. State Universities Act pointing out certain irregularities and asking the committee of management to submit its explanation by June 30, 1978. By another order of the same date issued under Section 58 (2) of the Act, the State Government suspended the management of the college and entrusted the management to the District Magistrate Bulandshahr. The petitioners challenged these orders by filing a writ petition No. 5029 of 1978, in this Court. In this writ petition it was alleged that Dr. P.C. Gupta was closely related to Dr. G.P. Mittal who was Secretary to the Education Department, U.P. and it was under his influence that these orders were passed. On June 14, 1978, a learned single Judge passed on order directing restoration of the management of the college. 7. The order of suspension of Dr. P.C. Gupta having been upheld the managing committee proceeded with the disciplinary enquiry. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. He submitted a report on December 24, 1978. The committee of management considered the report and on January 28, 1979, resolved to dismiss Dr. P.C. Gupta. On February 3, 1979, this resolution was sent to the Vice-Chancellor for approval. The Vice-Chancellor, however, disapproved it by an order passed on May 2, 1979. 8. The managing committee convened a meeting on May 20, 1979, to consider the situation. At this stage the State Government issued three orders. They were served on the committee of management on May 17, 1979. The first order withdrew the earlier show cause notice dated June 7, 1978. By the second order a fresh show cause notice under Section 57 (1) of the Act was issued and by the third order the committee of management was suspended under Section 58 (2) of the Act. 9. On May 25, 1979, the petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court (No. 3635 of 1979) challenging these orders. By the second order a fresh show cause notice under Section 57 (1) of the Act was issued and by the third order the committee of management was suspended under Section 58 (2) of the Act. 9. On May 25, 1979, the petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court (No. 3635 of 1979) challenging these orders. A learned single Judge after hearing the parties stayed the operation of the impugned orders and directed the restoration of the management of the college to the petitioner managing committee forthwith. In virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the committee of management resumed charge on May 31, 1979. It fixed a meeting for June 15, 1979 to consider the situation. 10. On June 14, 1979, the State Government issued another order superseding the management committee and appointing the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr as its authorised controller. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners filed a writ petition No. 4050 of 1979, in this Court. This time it was directed that the writ petition be heard immediately. It was heard by a Division Bench which, by its judgment reported in Nathi Mal Ram Sahai Mal Edward Coronation College Association, Khurja, Bulandshahr v. State of U.P. (1979 All LJ 1103) quashed these orders. 11. After resuming charge the committee of management filed a representation under Section 68 of the Act before the Chancellor challenging the validity of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor on May 2, 1979, disapproving the dismissal of Dr. P.C. Gupta. The representation is said to be still pending. 12. In the first writ petition filed by the petitioners namely No. 5029 of 1978, Dr. P.C. Gupta was not impleaded as a party. Dr. P.C. Gupta filed an application that he be impleaded. This application was allowed. He filed counter affidavits. In the subsequent two writ petitions, Dr. P.C. Gupta was impleaded as a party. He filed counter affidavits in all of them. In his counter affidavit Dr. P.C. Gupta stated that the managing committee has not been framed according to the Universities Act. The managing committee and the petitioner college have not been properly constituted. The provisions and the statutes have not been complied with. The Board of Trust and the petitioner society have also not been constituted in accordance with the Acts and the Statutes. 13. The petitioners allege that Dr. The managing committee and the petitioner college have not been properly constituted. The provisions and the statutes have not been complied with. The Board of Trust and the petitioner society have also not been constituted in accordance with the Acts and the Statutes. 13. The petitioners allege that Dr. P.C. Gupta was all along keen in ensuring removal of the committee of management so that he could avoid disciplinary action against him which was liable to be taken by the committee. 14. Dr. D.C. Sharma was the Vice-Chancellor of the Meerut University. He was appointed Chairman of the Public Service Commission for non-gazetted and ministerial staff of the State Government. Dr, P.C. Gupta was the senior-most Principal of the various affiliated colleges of the Meerut University. He was appointed to officiate on the post of the Vice-Chancellor on February 14, 1980. It appears that subsequently Dr. D.C. Sharma resigned and Dr. P.C. Gupta was appointed as an ad hoc Vice-Chancellor for six months on April 14, 1980. Soon after taking over charge as Vice Chancellor Dr. P.C. Gupta addressed a letter to the Secretary of the college that he would be visiting Meerut and performing his duties as Principal of the college on alternate days. The secretary of the petitioner college in his reply dated February 20, 1980, expressed apprehension that the College work shall suffer and enquiring under which provision of the Statute was he performing the duties of the Vice Chancellor as well as Principal of the College. A good deal of acrimonious correspondence ensued between them. After Dr. P.C. Gupta was appointed as an ad hoc Vice-Chancellor he requested the college to grant him extraordinary leave up to July 14, 1980, in the first instance. The petitioner college, however, appears to have granted him privilege leave up to May 22, 1980, only. The committee of management of the petitioner college met on June 1, 1980. It required, Dr. P.C. Gupta, to join the college immediately as the work of the college was suffering and that it was not possible to grant him further leave. The committee met on July 6, 1980, and finding that Dr. P.C. Gupta had not joined duties, resolved that the post of the Principal had fallen vacant and should be filled up. 15. P.C. Gupta, to join the college immediately as the work of the college was suffering and that it was not possible to grant him further leave. The committee met on July 6, 1980, and finding that Dr. P.C. Gupta had not joined duties, resolved that the post of the Principal had fallen vacant and should be filled up. 15. Meanwhile, it appears that on February 3, 1980, one Sri Damodar Swarup and Sri Lalta Prasad Mittal addressed a letter to the Vice Chancellor questioning the legality of the constitution of the management of the petitioner college. In this letter these gentlemen made references to the previous representation challenging the legality of the managing committee. The previous representation was filed in June, 1975. Another similar representation was filed subsequently in 1977. The Vice Chancellor in his order states that he took up the matter for decision towards the end of May, 1980. The Secretary was asked to send his comments on the representation by June 15, 1980. The date was extended till June 25, 1980 and then to June 30. On June 30, 1980, the Secretary of the petitioner intimated that its comments would be sent in four week's time. On July 25, 1980, the petitioner submitted a para-wise reply. September 5, 1980, appears to have been fixed by the Vice Chancellor for hearing. The petitioners were, however, absent. The hearing was adjourned to September 12, 1980. On this date also none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The Vice Chancellor however, received a letter from the secretary praying that the matter be stayed till the decision of the Chancellor. In this letter, it was stated by the Secretary that Dr. P.C. Gupta, the Vice Chancellor was intensely interested in the ouster of the managing committee. He was biased. He should not decide the matter. A request has been made to the Chancellor to stay the proceedings. The Chancellor's order should be awaited. The Vice Chancellor in his order states that this request for stay of hearing cannot be accepted because the Vice Chancellor has exclusive, jurisdiction to decide the matter. The Chancellor's jurisdiction commences only after the Vice Chancellor had given a decision and not before. The Chancellor's order should be awaited. The Vice Chancellor in his order states that this request for stay of hearing cannot be accepted because the Vice Chancellor has exclusive, jurisdiction to decide the matter. The Chancellor's jurisdiction commences only after the Vice Chancellor had given a decision and not before. He thereupon heard Sri Damodar Swarup and Sri Lalta Prasad Mittal and passed the impugned order dated September 19, 1980, holding that the petitioner society, the managing committee and the secretary were not validly constituted or elected. 16. Dr. P.C. Gupta, the Vice Chancellor has filed a counter affidavit. He has denied that he was biased against the petitioner but he has not denied the facts mentioned above. 17. The petitioners case is that Dr. P.C. Gupta was heavily biased against the petitioner committee of management as well as its secretary. The petitioners had a reasonable apprehension that they will not get justice at his hands. They pointedly brought this submission to the notice of the Vice Chancellor. They also sent a representation to the Chancellor to this effect. The impugned order has been passed by a person against whom there was a strong apprehension of likelihood of bias. The impugned orders were hence not valid. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection. He submitted that the petitioners have an adequate alternative remedy by way of representation before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Universities Act. Hence it is not a fit case for interference at this stage. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, ( AIR 1976 SC 2428 ). In that case the Court found that the appellant knew all the relevant facts but he did not raise any objection when he appeared for interview before the selection committee against its constitution. He voluntarily appeared and took a chance of having a favourable recommendation. Having done so it is not open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee on the ground that some of the members were biased. Sarana's case is distinguishable. Here the petitioners took an objection before Dr. P.C. Gupta that he should not decide the matter because the petitioners apprehend that they will not get justice at his hands. 19. Sarana's case is distinguishable. Here the petitioners took an objection before Dr. P.C. Gupta that he should not decide the matter because the petitioners apprehend that they will not get justice at his hands. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that the courts have not refused relief to a litigant on ground of alternative remedy in a case where there has been a breach of principles of natural justice. He placed reliance on State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh ( AIR 1958 SC 86 ) and Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad Muzzaffar-nagar ( AIR 1969 SC 556 ) : (1969 All LJ 596). In these decisions, it has been held that existence of alternative remedy is no bar to a writ petition where it is alleged that the tribunal acted under a provision of law which is ultra vires or where it is alleged that it acted in violation of principles of natural justice. We are hence not disposed to throw out the petition on the ground of alternative remedy. 20. It is well settled that the principles of natural justice which are meant to prevent miscarriage of justice are also applicable to domestic enquiries and administrative proceedings (Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow ( AIR 1976 SC 2428 ). 21. The twin principles of natural justice are that no one should be condemned unheard and that the Judge should be able to act impartially (Audi alteram partem). In Manaklal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi ( AIR 1957 SC 425 ) it was held :- "In such cases the test is not whether, in fact a bias has affected the judgment, the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal. It is in this sense that it is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done." 22. This was reiterated by the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India ( AIR 1970 SC 150 ), it was held that the real question is not whether he was biased. It is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person. This was reiterated by the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India ( AIR 1970 SC 150 ), it was held that the real question is not whether he was biased. It is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person. We have to see whether there is any reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. There must be a reasonable likelihood of bias. We have to take into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct. 23. In Principles of Administrative Law by Griffiths (3rd Ed. p. 160) it has been stated:- "The third type of bias is personal bias. A Judge may be a relative, friend or an associate of a party or he may be personally hostile as a result of events happening either before or during the course of a trial." 24. The petitioners have imputed this type of bias to Dr. P.C. Gupta. The facts narrated above which have been alleged in the writ petition speak for themselves. It is abundantly clear that there was a good deal of animosity between the petitioners and Dr. P.C. Gupta. The petitioners had alleged serious charges of embezzlement and other irregularities against Dr. P.C. Gupta. They had resolved to suspend him and then to remove him. Dr. P.C. Gupta was strenuously contesting the proceedings. It is evident that there was a feeling of serious hostility between the petitioners and Dr. P.C. Gupta. In the circumstances, the petitioners could reasonably believe that Dr. P.C. Gupta was likely to be biased that they will not get justice at his hands. 25. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously urged that Dr. P.C. Gupta was in fact, not prejudiced or hostile to the petitioners. He went on to submit that any other person would have come to the same conclusion that Dr. P.C. Gupta did. This is a fallacious argument. In the first place it cannot with any certainty be said that if any other person had decided the matter the result would have been the same. The petitioners have alleged that the previous Vice-Chancellor heard the complaint on two occasions and on each occasion they chose not to interfere. On each of those occasions the complainant was the same as now. The petitioners have alleged that the previous Vice-Chancellor heard the complaint on two occasions and on each occasion they chose not to interfere. On each of those occasions the complainant was the same as now. In the second place we are reminded of the observations of the Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379 at p. 395: ( AIR 1981 SC 136 ):- "In our view the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependant on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It ill comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced." 26. The important thing is that justice is seen to be done. To say that even if the case had been conducted by some other person the result would have been the same is mixing up doing justice with seeing that justice is done. 27. Learned counsel for the respondents then submitted that the present was a case of necessity. The Vice-Chancellor was the only person who could decide on the complaint against the petitioners. The doctrine of necessity is well recognised but has been applied very sparingly. If Dr. P.C. Gupta had been properly advised in law the question of necessity would not have impelled him to take the matter up and decide it. He was Vice-Chancellor only till October 14, 1980. Thereafter someone else was bound to come. He passed the impugned orders on September 19, 1980 and October 8, 1980 only a few days before his term was to expire. Heavens would not have fallen if he would not have taken upon himself the task of deciding this complaint against the petitioners. After all the complaint was being made from 1975 onwards. On two previous occasions it had been heard by previous Vice-Chancellors who refused to interfere. He could have left it for the regular Vice-Chancellor who was liable to be appointed on or after October 14, 1980. In this situation, the doctrine of necessity had hardly any applicability. The respondents cannot validly take shelter behind this doctrine. 28. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. He could have left it for the regular Vice-Chancellor who was liable to be appointed on or after October 14, 1980. In this situation, the doctrine of necessity had hardly any applicability. The respondents cannot validly take shelter behind this doctrine. 28. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated September 19, 1980 and October 8, 1980 passed by the Vice-Chancellor Dr. P.C. Gupta are quashed. It will, however, be open to the succeeding Vice-Chancellor to, if he likes, take up the matter and decide the complaints in accordance with law. In the circumstances the parties will bear their own costs.