JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - On 7th April, 1979, the State Government issued notice to the management of the Bundelkhand Degree College, Jhansi requiring them to show cause why the managing committee be not superseded and the management of the College be not handed over to the District Magistrate. The same day the Government issued another order suspending the management and appointing the District Magistrate. Jhansi as the authorised controller under Section 58 (2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. 2. At that time two sets of managing committees were claiming to be in control and management of the institution. They both filed representations to the State Government against the proposed suspension. The Government considered the representations and on September 1, 1979 revoked the notices issued under Section 58 (2) of the Act and also the interim suspension of the management. It further directed the District Magistrate to hand over the management of the College to the managing committee from which the management was taken over by him. It appears that the District Magistrate sent a teleprinter message to the Government, the contents of which are not known to the record of this writ petition. In answer the Government on 7th September, 1979 sent a teleprinter message to the District Magistrate, Jhansi, saying : "Please refer to your teleprinter message regarding Bundelkhand Degree College, Jhansi, the Management of the College is to be handed over to the committee consisting of Shri P.C. Jain as President and Shri B.K. Sharma as Managing Secretary. Formal orders follow." On 10th September, 1979, the State Government issued a formal order to that effect. Aggrieved, the petitioner, who is the rival committee of management, has come to this court and has filed this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the District Magistrate take over the management from the petitioners, who were in effective control of the management of the College at that time it was incumbent upon the respondents to hand over charge to the petitioner committee of management. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the District Magistrate take over the management from the petitioners, who were in effective control of the management of the College at that time it was incumbent upon the respondents to hand over charge to the petitioner committee of management. The teleprinter message dated 7th September, 1979 followed by an order dated 10th September, 1979 directing the District Magistrate to handover the charge to the rival committee is illegal, firstly because by way of the order dated 10th September, 1979, the previous order dated 1st September, 1979 had become enforceable and thus the Governments decision could not be changed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and secondly because by that order the petitioners had acquired right to take over control and management of the institution. In the second place, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no material before the Government to decide as to from which committee of management, the control was taken over by the District Magistrate and on this score the order was illegal. We are, however, not satisfied that there is any merit in either of the submissions. Both the rival managing committees claimed to be in control of the institution. From the affidavit, it is clear that the respondents do not admit that the petitioners were controlling the institution or that they had handed over the control to the authorised controller. The matter was highly in dispute between the two rival bodies. 4. The State Government's order dated 1st September, 1979 directing the controller to hand over the charge to the committee of management from whom it was taken over is not inconsistent with the subsequent order of the State Government dated 10th September, 1979 mentioned above. In the counter-affidavit the State Government states that the matter was in process, the provisions of Section 58(2) were considered and then the order dated 10th September, 1979 was passed. It is evident that the Government took into consideration the rival representations in order to decide as to which committee was in effective control of the management of the institution and from whom it was taken over. It had not intended by its order dated 1st September, 1979 that the charge should be handed over to the petitioner committee of management. It had not intended by its order dated 1st September, 1979 that the charge should be handed over to the petitioner committee of management. In that order it was mentioned that decision had been taken to cancel the appointment of the interim authorised controller with immediate effect and that steps be taken in this connection immediately and the management of the College be handed over to the same managing committee from which it was taken over. Thereafter the District Magistrate invited the attention of the Government to the dispute arising from the rival claims made by the two groups. The Government thereupon considered the entire matter and directed by its order dated 10th September, 1979 that the management of the college be handed over to the committee of management consisting of Shri P.C. Jain as President and Shri B.K. Sharma as managing Secretary. 5. We are hence not satisfied that the order dated 10th September, 1979 varies in material respects the rider dated 1st September, 1979. Under these circumstances there was no occasion to afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 6. The representations filed by the rival parties to the notice under Section 58 (2) were duly considered by the State Government and thereafter it took the decision as to from which of them the charge was initially taken over. The decision of the Government that the charge be handed over to the respondents committee of management is only tentative with a view to withdraw its own control from the institution. The petitioners are free to get their title of being the lawful committee of management and their case that they were in fact in actual control of the management adjudicated either through a Civil Court or through the Vice-Chancellor under the relevant statutes of the Bundelkhand University. 7. Under the circumstances, we do not think it to be a fit case for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. The interim order dated 10th October, 1979 is discharged.