JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - The Manager of the Govind Ballabh Pant Degree Collage submitted an explanation in response to a notice issued by the State Government on the 8th August, 1978 denying all the eight charges levelled against the Management. As far as the charge relating to the deplorable state of the College buildings was concerned the reply on behalf of the management was to the effect that it was absolutely incorrect that the Institution Building was in a deplorable state. It was asserted that the institution had six class rooms 20' x 30' and there were three other class rooms in the building which hid been constructed by the Management out of funds secured by its own efforts and without the help of any building grant from the Government. It was further stated that the Mahavidyalaya possessed a lecture-theatre which was capable of seating one hundred and four students at a time. It was asserted that the class rooms were not in improper state. Regarding the charge about the insufficiency of books in the library it was stated that it was not true that the books of the library were old insufficient to meet the needs of the students. The stand was taken that on account of the failure of the Heads of Departments and the Principal to make appropriate demands the number of books supplied to the library in the various years remained insufficient. With regard to the charge that the management had failed to make deposits in the endowment-fund for three years 1975 to 1978 it was stated that in the year 1975-76 a deposit of Rs. 1,000, in the year 1976-77 a deposit of Rs. 4,300 and in the year 1977-78 deposit of Rs. 5,000 has been made. The explanation went on to disclosed that the balance amount for the year 1976-77 to the extent, of Rs. 700 has been deposited on the 21st June, 1978 and that balance of Rs. 4,000 for the financial year 1975-76 would be deposited within a period of 15 days. The explanation went on to disclose that the management had not been able to make the requisite deposits because it had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 700 has been deposited on the 21st June, 1978 and that balance of Rs. 4,000 for the financial year 1975-76 would be deposited within a period of 15 days. The explanation went on to disclose that the management had not been able to make the requisite deposits because it had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 15,000 to make good its matching share to the grant obtained from the University for the College and that it had spent Rs 15, 00 in making some Additional Constructions in the College Building. The charge relating to the improper expenditure of Rs. 1,275 over the purchase of calves was met by the management on the plea that they had been purchased for the purposes of cultivating and ploughing the farm which had been endowed for the purposes of running the College. Apparently after considering the explanation submitted on behalf of the Management on the 23rd January. 1979 the State Government passed the impugned order. Of the eight charges initially framed against the management it was exonerated of four. It was, however held that the class rooms of the college building were in a deplorable state and that though the Manager of the institution had in his explanation disclosed the number of the class rooms of the college building he had given no explanation as to why the class room were not in a proper state. It was further held that the books contained in the library were old and substandard and incapable of meeting the needs of the students of the college. It was found that in the past many years the management had spent an in significant amount over the maintenance of the library. Thus the explanation offered by the Management regarding the state of the library was held to be unsatisfactory. The explanation offered by the Management regarding the deposit of Rs 5,000 in the Endowment-fund in the year 1977-78 seems to have been accepted but it was held that admittedly in the financial year 1975-76 there was a deficiency of Rs. 4 00 in the deposit made by the management to the endowment-fund and that in the year 1976-77 also there was a shortage in the deposit made in the endowment-fund. In view of the findings recorded on the four charges mentioned above the order was passed which is under challenge in these proceedings 2. 4 00 in the deposit made by the management to the endowment-fund and that in the year 1976-77 also there was a shortage in the deposit made in the endowment-fund. In view of the findings recorded on the four charges mentioned above the order was passed which is under challenge in these proceedings 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at least three of the grounds on which the orders of the State Government were founded were either irrelevant or were based on vague allegations and consequently the order which deprived the Committee of Management of its statutory rights to manage the affairs of the College was without jurisdiction. Action under Section 58, subsection (1) of the U. P. State Universities Act can be taken by the State Government against the Management of an affiliated college only if after considering an explanation submitted by the management under Section 57 of the Act it is satisfied that any of the grounds enumerated in that section exist. 3. On behalf of the state it was contended that on the findings recorded by the State Government after considering the explanation offered by the management the order was justified on the basis of the conditions contained in Section 57 (1) (iv) and (v) of the Act. The relevant provisions of Section 57 on which reliance has been lased on behalf of the State are in the following terms : - "If the State Government receives information in respect of any affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively of the State Government or a local authority) - (i) ...........; or (ii) ................. ; or (iii) ......................; or (iv) that its Management has persistently failed to provide the college with such adequate and proper accommodation, library, furniture, stationery, laboratory equipment, and other facilities as are necessary for the efficient administration of the college ; or (v) that its Management has substantially diverted, misapplied, misappropriated the property of the college to the detriment of the college". 4. As far as the findings regarding the state of the college building is concerned it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there was no decision by the State Government that the management had persistently failed to provide the college with proper accommodation. It was submitted that the charge was exceedingly vague and consequently the reply was equally vague. It was submitted that the charge was exceedingly vague and consequently the reply was equally vague. The charge did not state as to what defects existed in the college building rooms and consequently the management was prejudiced and not in a position to offer any explanation m detail. This contention in our opinion is sound. The charge is a one line, summarily stating that the college buildings were in a deplorable state. There was no indication in the charge as to what defects existed in the accommodation provided by the management for teaching of the students in the college. The explanation disclosed that the accommodation was undoubtedly adequate and there is no finding to the contrary. As is clear from a reading of the order impugned there is no finding that there bad been per sister failure to provide proper accommodation necessary for the efficient administration n of the college. Under the circumstances the finding that the state of the college building was not proper is irrelevant and net covered by Clause (i\) of Section 57 (1). We shall as limit for the purposes of this writ petition that there is a finding based on facts that the management bad persistently failed to provide adequate library facilities. In our view, however, the finding that for two years the management had failed to deposit the requisite amount in the endowment-found also tannest justify the crater either under Clause (iv) or (v) of Section 57, sub-section (1) of the Act or any other clause of that provision. The mere fir ding that in certain years the management had failed to make the necessary deposits in the endowment-fund cannot be considered to amount to the management having misappropriated the property of the college to its detriment. The explanation offered by the Management was to the effect that for certain years it had to incur extraordinary expenditures and consequently there was a delay on its part in depositing the entire amount which it should have done in the endowment-fund. This could not be considered as an act by the Management diverting, misapplying or misappropriating the college property to its detriment. The finding on the fourth charge that the management had unnecessarily spent an amount of Rs. This could not be considered as an act by the Management diverting, misapplying or misappropriating the college property to its detriment. The finding on the fourth charge that the management had unnecessarily spent an amount of Rs. 1,275 in the year 1970 over the purchase of calves when it already possessed a factor also is not covered by Clause (v) of Section 57 (1) of the Act. Assuming that it was unnecessary for the n management to spiced the amount on the purchase of calves in view of the fact that it had a tractor such an act could not amount to diverting or misapplying or misappropriating of the college property to its detriment. In fact there is no finding that by purchasing the calves there had been a misappropriation of the property of the college to its detriment. There is no finding that the service were not utilised for the purposes of the college. Under the circumstances three of the charges found against the petitioners were wholly irrelevant and outside the purview of Section 57 (1) of the Act. 5. The only question surviving consideration is as to whether this court having found that out of the four charges on which the order is founded three were irrelevant the order must stillage sustained. The test to be applied in such a situation has been stated by the Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra v. Babulal Kriparam and others, ( AIR 1967 SC 1353 ) in the following terms: - "Whether an order is based on several grounds, some of which are irrelevant then if there is nothing to show that the authority would have passed the order on the basis of relevant and existing grounds and that order cannot be sustained. Where, however, the court is satisfied that the authority would have passed the order on the basis of the other relevant and existing ground could not have affected the ultimate opinion or decision of the authority, order has to be sustained". 6. We have closely examined the order under challenge and there is no indication therein that the State Government would still have passed the order under Section 58 (1) of the Act, if it had exonerated the college of three of the four (t) charge found established.. 6. We have closely examined the order under challenge and there is no indication therein that the State Government would still have passed the order under Section 58 (1) of the Act, if it had exonerated the college of three of the four (t) charge found established.. The only ground in our opinion which was relevant to the question as to whether the order under Section 58 (I) of the Act ought to have been passed or not is with regard to the insufficiency of the funds spent over the lip keep of the library. The record discloses that in fa.t it was a Decree College where only ICO students were enrolled. It was situate in the rural areas. We entertain grave doubts that the State Government would have passed the order under Section 58 (1) of Act depriving the Committee of Management of its right to manage the affair of the institution merely became over a period of two or three years it had spent an insufficient amount over maintenance of the library. 7. For the reasons given above allow this writ petition and quash the order passed by the State Government dated 23rd January, 1979 opposite-parties are directed to hand over the possession of the management of the institution to the petitioner no. 1 forthwith. The petitioners will be entitled to their costs from the opposite-parties.