JUDGMENT H. N. Seth, J. - The Committee of Management of Shashi Bhushan Balika Vidyalaya Degree College, Lucknow, through its Manager Sri B. N. Bhattacharya has approached this Court for relief against the order of the State Government dated 10th of Sept. 1981 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) by which the term of the authorised Controller of the Institution appointed by the State Government, vide its order dated 12th of Sept. 1979 has been, in exercise of powers under section 57 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Universities (Reenactment and Amendment) Act, 1974, extended by one year. 2. On 12th of Sept. 1979 the State of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of its powers under Section 58 (1) of the U. P. State Universities Act, appointed an Authorised Controller of the Shashi Bhushan Balika Vidyalaya Degree College, Lucknow, for a period of two years on following three grounds : - (1) The management of the College had appointed a Principal for the College of violation of the Statutes and Ordinances. (2) There was no separate building for the Degree Section and the Classes of the . Intermediate and Degree Sections were being held shift-wise. (3) The explanation of the Manager regarding the library and books was found to be unsatisfactory. 3. While the term of the Authorised Controller so appointed was coming to an "end, the State Government issued the notification dated 10th of Sept. 1981 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) extending the period of his appointment by another year. It gave the following reason for extending the period of the Authorised Controller : - "After reviewing the situation prevailing in the college, the Government was satisfied that even up to the date of passing the order the Managing Committee of the college had failed to arrange for a separate building for the Degree section and had also failed to make good the deficiency in the books in its' library. Accordingly a situation mentioned in sub-section (4) of S. 57, prejudicial to the interest of the institution, continues to exist and, therefore, it is necessary in the interest of justice that the period of Authorised Controller be extended by another years." 4. Accordingly a situation mentioned in sub-section (4) of S. 57, prejudicial to the interest of the institution, continues to exist and, therefore, it is necessary in the interest of justice that the period of Authorised Controller be extended by another years." 4. Section 58 of the U. P. State Universities Act lays down that if the State Government after considering the explanation, if any, submitted by the Management is satisfied that any of following five grounds (specified in S. 57 of the Act) : (i) that the Management has persistently committed wilful default in paying the salary of the teachers or others employees of the college by the twentieth day of the month next following the month in respect of which or any part of which it is payable; or (ii) that the Management has failed to appoint teaching staff possessing such qualifications as are necessary for the purpose of ensuring the maintenance of academic standards in relation to the college or has appointed or retained in service any teacher in contravention of the Statutes or Ordinances; or (iii) that any dispute with respect to the right claimed by different persons to be lawful office-bearers of the Management has affected the smooth and orderly administration of the college; or (iv) that the 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 the Management has substantially diverted, misapplied or misappropriated the property of the college to the detriment of the college; exists, it may appoint an Authorised Controller to take over, for such period not exceeding two years, the Management of the college and its property to the exclusion of the Management. The first proviso of the said section, however, empowers the State Government to, in case it is of opinion that it is expedient so to do in order to continue to secure the proper management of the college and its property from time to time, extend the operation of the period for which an Authorised Controller has been appointed by period not exceeding one year at a time, so however, that the total period of the operation of the order, including the period specified in the initial order, does not exceed four years. 5. 5. The State Government can extend the period for which an Authorised Controller has been appointed only if it feels satisfied that it is expedient to do so in order to continue to secure the proper management of the college and its property. It is not empowered to extend the period of Authorised Controller on the ground that during the time the Authorised Controller was in charge of the management and property of the college, the Management failed to remove any defect. It is obvious that during his tenure the responsibility of removing any defect in the management of the college or its property is that of the Authorised Controller and not that of the Management. We find that in the instant case the only reason mentioned in the order for extending the period of the Authorised Controller was that even up to 10th September, 1981 the Management had failed to provide 'separate building for the Degree Section and adequate books in the college library. The petitioner Management Committee had been out of control of the management and property belonging to the college ever since 12th September, 1979 and during this period the responsibility of removing the defects pointed out in the order dated 10th of September, 1981 was clearly that of the Authorised Controller. Accordingly it was not open to the State Government to extend the period of the Authorised Controller for the reason that the Management had, till 10th of Sept. 1981, not succeeded in removing the defects mentioned in the impugned order. 6. It may be that as has been suggested in the counter-affidavit, the State Government could extend the period of the Authorised Controller for the reason that during his tenure the Authorised Controller had taken steps and has succeeded in removing the defects to a substantial extent and that it was in the interest of the Institution that the term should be extended for a further period to enable him to completely remove those defects, but then that is not the reason mentioned in the impugned order. According to the impugned order, tenure of the Authorised Controller was being extended because the Managing Committee had, during the period the Authorised Controller was in charge of the property of the college, failed to remove some defects. According to the impugned order, tenure of the Authorised Controller was being extended because the Managing Committee had, during the period the Authorised Controller was in charge of the property of the college, failed to remove some defects. Extension of the term of the Authorised Controller for such a reason is clearly not envisaged by Section 58 of the U. P. State Universities Act. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 10th of Sept. 1981 is quashed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.