ORDER S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed against the order of the Chancellor dated 8th Sept. 1982. 2. Digambar Jain High School Association. Baraut petitioner No. 1. is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The last elections of the Committee of Management of the Association were held on 5th Feb., 1978. Kailash Chand Jain, respondent No. 3 was elected as the Secretary and Sukhbir Singh Jain, petitioner No. 3 was elected as President of the Association. On 8th June, 1981, the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University, Meerut, passed an order authorising Sukhbir Singh Jain, President of the Managing Committee of the College, to countersign the salary bills and cheques etc. in place of the Secretary in order that no inconvenience could be caused to the employees of the college. He further directed that the maintenance account and the development account etc. will be operated by the President and Principal jointly till the elections of the Management Committee are held and the newly elected Committee takes over. On the same day, namely, on 8th June, 1981, another order was passed appointing Sukhbir Singh Jain as the Administrator of the College after superseding the Committee of Management. These two orders were sought to be passed in exercise of the emergency powers conferred on the Vice-Chancellor under S. 13 (1) (a) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The orders of the Vice-Chancellor dated 6th June, 1981, were challenged by the respondent No. 3 before the Chancellor under S. 68 of the Act by means of a representation. The Chancellor by an order dated 8th Sept., 1982, allowed the representation of the respondent No. 3 and quashed the orders of the Vice-Chancellor dated 8th June, 1981, and directed the Vice-Chancellor to decide the matter, if necessary, in accordance with the provisions of Statute 13.34 of the Statutes of the University after affording an opportunity to the rival parties. The order dated 8th September, 1982, has been impugned in the present writ petition. 3-A. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Statute 13.34 does not apply to the instant case and the Chancellor acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the Vice-Chancellor on the basis of the provisions contained in Statute 13.34. 3-A. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Statute 13.34 does not apply to the instant case and the Chancellor acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the Vice-Chancellor on the basis of the provisions contained in Statute 13.34. The second contention of the petitioners is that so far as the order of the Vice-Chancellor is concerned, the Chancellor has not considered the validity of the order on merits and no reasons have been given in the impugned order and, as such, the order is manifestly erroneous. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Statute 13.34 of the Statutes applicable to the Meerut University, provides as under : "13.34. Whenever there is a dispute regarding the management of an affiliated college, persons found by the Vice- Chancellor to be in actual possession and control of the college properties may, for purposes of the Act and these Statutes be recognised to constitute the Management of such college until a court of competent jurisdiction orders otherwise : Provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall before making an order under this Statute, afford an opportunity to the rival claimants to make written representations. Explanation - In determining the question as to who is in actual possession and control of the College properties the Vice-Chancellor shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the actual administration, the receipt of the income from the property of the institution and to other relevant circumstances which might have bearing on the question to be determined. On a reading of the above Statute 13.34, it is evident that this Statute applies to disputes between two managements. The Proviso in this regard is very significant, as it clearly lays down that the Vice-Chancellor, shall, before making an order under this Statute, afford an opportunity to rival claimants to make written representations. The rival claimants here contemplates the Managing Committee which asserts that, actually, it is that Management Committee which should be the management committee of the College. This Statute does not apply to a case where there is a dispute amongst the office-bearers of the same Managing Committee. 5. In the instant case, there is no rival Managing Committee in question. Therefore, the question of the applicability of the Statute 13.34 does not arise. This Statute does not apply to a case where there is a dispute amongst the office-bearers of the same Managing Committee. 5. In the instant case, there is no rival Managing Committee in question. Therefore, the question of the applicability of the Statute 13.34 does not arise. The view, to the contrary, taken by the Chancellor, is manifestly erroneous. 6. The Vice-Chancellor has exercised the power under S. 13 (1) (a) of the Act. In Committee of Management of Janata Vedic College, Baraut, District Meerut v. Vice- Chancellor, Meerut University, 1982 UPLBEC 574 : ( AIR 1983 All 128 ), a Division Bench, of this Court has taken the view that the Vice-Chancellor has the power in certain circumstances to appoint an administrator under S. 13 (1) (a) of the Act in exercise of his emergency powers. The question as to whether the power has been validly exercised by the Vice-Chancellor has to be considered on its own merits. I have perused the order. The Chancellor has not at all adverted to the facts of the present case and then determined as to whether the order of the Vice-Chancellor, in the instant case, was a valid order on merits. It has to be determined whether the order comes within the parameters of S. 13 (1) (a) of the Act and the principles laid down by this Court. 7. It appears from the impugned order that the Chancellor was of the opinion that since no orders for the appointment of an Administrator could be made under S. 13 (1) (a) of the Act, the Chancellor held that the order was in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. This view is contrary to the decision in Committee of Management of Jain Vedic College, Baraut (Supra). Since the Chancellor was of the view that no administrator could be appointed under S. 13 (1) of the Act, the case was not considered on merits and no reasons were, consequently, given. 8. In the circumstances, both the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are well founded. 9. Sri R. K. Jain has vehemently contended that, in fact, the order of the Vice-Chancellor is to be read as if the Chancellor has considered the facts and circumstances of this case and has then held that the order of the Vice-Chancellor was invalid. 9. Sri R. K. Jain has vehemently contended that, in fact, the order of the Vice-Chancellor is to be read as if the Chancellor has considered the facts and circumstances of this case and has then held that the order of the Vice-Chancellor was invalid. I do not agree with the submission made by Sri Jain. The Chancellor has only, on a reading of S. 13 (1) (a) of the Act, held that the Vice-Chancellor has no power to pass the impugned order dated 8th June, 1982. He has not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to whether the orders of the Vice-Chancellor are justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Sri R. K. Jain has further contended that the effect of the order of the Chancellor is that the President of the Society has been permitted to act as Managing Committee of the College for more than two years and, as such, the order of the Vice-Chancellor is invalid in view of the decision of this Court. This is a question which relates to the merits of the case. It will be open to the Chancellor to consider this question also while deciding the representation, if it is raised before him. 11. In the result, I allow the petition, quash the order of the Chancellor dated 8th Sept., 1982, and remand the case to the Chancellor for decision of the representation made by the respondent No. 3 after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Since there is a dispute between the management of the college and its Secretary, the Chancellor may, if possible decide the representation within a period of three months from the date the certified copy of the order is produced in the office of the Chancellor. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.