JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - The dispute in the present petition relates to the Unani Medical College, Allahabad. By means of the present petition the order of the State Government dated 29th of July, 1981 appointing as Authorised Controller has been challenged. This Unani Medical College has been established with the object of imparting knowledge of Unani system of medicine on modern lines. The college is affiliated to the University of Kanpur and the provisions of U. V. State Universities Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act, are applicable to the College. 2. We have heard Shri Jagdish Swarup on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents, Shri Jagdish Swarup raised two contention before us. His first contention is that the Unani Medical College is a minority institution and as such it is protected by Article 30 of the Constitution of India and, consequently, no Authorised Controller can be appointed under section 59 of the Act. The second contention is that the order appointing an Authorised Controller in manifestly erroneous 1 as the case does not come in any of the clauses mentioned in section 57 of the Act. He has further urged that the order is in violation of the principle of natural justice as the copy of the report dated 18th December, 1950, submitted by the Deputy Director, Ayurvedic Unani (Education) U.P. Lucknow was not supplied to the petitioner. 3. After hearing parties counsel for sometime, since the petition as well as counter-affidavit did not contain the entire relevant record to determine the question with regard to the fact as to whether the college was a minority institution or not, Shri Jagdish Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this question and left the question open for some further date if and when it was necessary for the petitioner to urge, particularly in view of the fact on the second question we were in favour of the petitioner. 4. In order to determine the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to examine the scope of the various provisions of the Act and the parameters of the powers of the State Government while determining the question as to whether and in what circumstances an Authorised Controller be appointed. 4. In order to determine the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to examine the scope of the various provisions of the Act and the parameters of the powers of the State Government while determining the question as to whether and in what circumstances an Authorised Controller be appointed. The relationship created by an affiliation of a college to a University is only for the limited purpose of ensuring that the educational institution is run and administered in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Statutes and Ordinances and further ensuring that ultimately the students who are being taught in the said college will be able to obtain degree conferred by the University. In order that the interests of the teachers, students and other employees are not affected adversely, regulatory measures have been provided in the Act, Statutes and Ordinance in order that the standard of education may be maintained. Section 37 (4) provides that except as provided by this Act, the management of an affiliated college small be free to manage and Control the affairs of the college. It is clear from this provision that the legislature recognised the freedom of an affiliated college to manage and control the affairs of the college in its own way. The limitations of the powers of the management are only there which are provided by the Act. Section 57 enumerates the circumstances in which an Authorised Controller can be appointed by the State Government. It is, therefore, clear that unless any of the defendants as mentioned in sub-clause (i) to (iv) of section 57 of the Act are found by the State Government, the State Government cannot take over the management and appoint an Authorised Controller. The power of the State Government can be exercised under section 57 when it receives information of the various defaults mentioned in the above clauses. The word information indicates that the State Government can act on any information received by it and it need not be only after it gets the college inspected as provided under section 40 of the Act which is a visiterial power. The word information indicates that the State Government can act on any information received by it and it need not be only after it gets the college inspected as provided under section 40 of the Act which is a visiterial power. In the instant case, however, it is admitted by the parties that the State Government got the college inspected by the Deputy Director, Ayurvedic Unani (Education) U.P. Lucknow on 18th December, 1980 and in paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has been stated that the action had been initiated under section 58 of the Act because of the inquiry report dated 18th December, 1980 submitted by the Deputy Director. 5. Section 57 of the Act provides that the State Government shall call upon the management to show cause as to why an order under section 58 of the Act should not be made. In paragraph 28 of the petition it has been categorically stated that the inspection report dated 18th December, 1980 which, was the basis of the charges levelled against the petitioner college were not disclosed of furnished to the management. This fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit. In the circumstances since the report submitted by the Deputy Directs dated 18th December, 1980 having not been supplied to the College and proper opportunity was afforded to it to give a specific reply to the said report or to remedy the defects if any, pointed out in the said report, the impugned order appointing an Authorised Controller is clearly in vitiation of principle of natural justice. 6. We have also examined the cause on the ground as to whether the conditions precedent as stated in section 57 of the Act for appointment of an Authorised Controller were at all present in the instant case to entitle the State Government to appoint an Authorised Controller. 7. In the instant case, action had been taken by the State Government under sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of section 57 of the Act, , In sub-clauses (i) and (iv) the significant word used by the legislature is persistently. It is not only the default which entitles the State Government to take action against the management but default has to be a persistent one. It is, therefore, necessary to examine what is the meaning of the word persistent. In shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. It is not only the default which entitles the State Government to take action against the management but default has to be a persistent one. It is, therefore, necessary to examine what is the meaning of the word persistent. In shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II, persistent has been defined as continuous, constantly, repeated. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, 4th Ed., Vol. IV it has been stated as follows : Persistently connote a degree of repetition of the importuning ; either more than on invitation to one person or a series or invitation to different people, relying upon Dale v. Smith, 1967 IWLR 700 ; (1967)2 All LR 1133. 8. In our opinion, the word persistent connotes something more than once. It must be an act which has been repeated. The mere one default cannot entitle the State Government under these clauses to take over the management and appoint an Authorised Controller. The default must b) either continuous . or must have been committed more than once. 9. Four charges have been levelled against the, petitioners. The first charge is that the defaults have been made in the payments of the salaries of the teachers and other employees of the college. The-management paid the salary for the months of April, May and June, 1980 together on 1-7-1980, the salary for the month of August, 1980 was paid on 17th October, 1980, thesalary for the month of September, 1980 was paid on 6th November, 1980 and the salary for the month of October, 1980 was paid on 11th December, 1980 and the salary for the month of November, 1980 had not been paid till 18th December, 1980 and, as such, it was urged that under clause (i) the management has persistently committed willful default. The defence of the petitioner college was that the provisions of Chapter XL A mere applicable to the college and, therefore it was the duty also of the State Government to pay the salary of the teachers and the employees, and the management of the college cannot be held responsible under this clause, as in fact, not-action was taken by the State Government under Chapter XL A and also the maintenance grant was not paid within time. 10. 10. In the impugned order, the , State Government has held that the provisions of section 60-E. of the Act were not applicable to the Unani Medical College and this appearsto be the basis of the decision of the' first charge by the State Government. In our-opinion section 60-E of the Act clearly applies to the Unani Medical College; It is admitted that the college is receiving maintenance grant from the State Government It is also admitted that it is an affiliated college of Kanpur University. In the circumstances under section 60-A (i) of the Act it would be a college to which the provisions of Chapter XLA which was inserted by U.P. Act 21 of 1975 fully applies and consequently the provisions of section 60-E would also apply and the State Government is liable to pay the salaries of the teachers and employees in respect of the period after March 31, 1975. The basis of the rejection of the defence set up by the petitioner was that section 60-E of the Act was not applicable to the college. This view of the State Government being manifestly erroneous, the finding recorded by the State Government in respect of the first charge is vitiated by law and as such action cannot be taken under section 58 of the Act on this Count. 11. The second charge related to clause (ii) of section 57 of the Act. The finding of the State Government is that the College management has failed to appoint teachers who were necessary for the purpose of raising a good and definite standard of the college and the teachers were appointed and retained in service against the rules and ordinances. The show-cause notice in this regard was wholly vague. No details have been given as to how many teachers were necessary for raising a good and definite standard of education. No evidence has been furnished to show as to whether the Kanpur University who was also responsible, for nominating experts on the selection committee did appoint experts within time or not. Merely on a vague allegation this charge has been held proved against the management of the College. The first portion of this charge therefore, is completely vague and cannot be sustained. 12. Merely on a vague allegation this charge has been held proved against the management of the College. The first portion of this charge therefore, is completely vague and cannot be sustained. 12. In regard to the second portion of this charge, the basis is the irregular appointment of Hakim Saad Usmani, the son of the Principal who is also Hony. Secretary or the managing committee. The ether appointments challenged are of Mohammad Farooq and Mohd. Suleman. We have examined the charge-sheet. In the charge-sheet no specific charges were framed in regard to the appointment of the above three teachers. Unless specific charge in this regard had been framed and an opportunity afforded to the managing committee to explain the said charge, the State Government acted without jurisdiction in holding the college a defaulter in respect of the appointments of these teachers. The second charge therefore, also is not sustainable in law. 13. The third and fourth charges are in respect of the Laboratory and Library. Action under sub-clause (iv) to section 57 of the Act can be taken only if then management has persistently failed to provide the college with adequate and proper.....Library,....Laboratory.......as are necessary for the efficient administration of the college. The State Government has not laid down any standard as to what according to them would be adequate and proper library and laboratory. In the absence of such norms, the management could not possibly comply with the same and the management cannot be held guilty of failure to provide with adequate and proper library and laboratory. We. have examined the findings recorded by the State Government in support of both the charges, but there is in fact no finding that the college has failed to provide with adequate and proper library and laboratory. The findings only are that sufficient number of books have not been provided in the library and that the amount necessary for the maintenance of the laboratory has not been spent. On this finding no action can be taken under clause (iv). The State Government, as stated above has to firstly lay down the standards and inform the college as to what they must do -in respect of the library and laboratory and if they fail to comply with the said instructions, not only once but persistently, then only action could have been taken under this clause. 14. The State Government, as stated above has to firstly lay down the standards and inform the college as to what they must do -in respect of the library and laboratory and if they fail to comply with the said instructions, not only once but persistently, then only action could have been taken under this clause. 14. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the action could not have been taken under any of the clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) to Section 57 of the Act and the State Government has clearly acted beyond its jurisdiction in appointing an authorised Controller. 15. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the State Government dated 29th July, 1981 is quashed. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to hand over the possession of the management of the institution to the petitioner forthwith. The petitioners will be entitled to their costs from the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.