JUDGMENT J.N. Dubey, J. - Arya Vidya Sabha, Muzaffarnagar is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It runs two educational Institutions, namely D. A. V. Inter College and D. A. V. Degree College, Muzaffarnagar. The management of the college vests in the Executive Committee of Arya Vidya Sabha which is elected by its general body for a period of three years. According to the allegations made in the petition the term of the Executive Committee which was elected in 1979 expired in 1982 and petitioner No. 1 was elected as new Executive Committee on 19-9-1982 with petitioner No. 2 as its Secretary. The petitioner No. 2 forwarded the minutes of the meeting of 19-9-1982 of the general body to the Vice Chancellor, Meerut University, for his approval. Kunj Behari, Secretary of the outgoing Executive Committee also submitted papers to the Vice Chancellor for his approval claiming that he has been re-elected on the said post. The Vice Chancellor after considering claims of both the parties accorded his approval to the petitioners on 4-2-1983. Kunj Behari filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1395 of 1983 in this Court against the order dated 4-2-1983 of the Vice Chancellor and the same is pending for final hearing. However, no interim order was passed by this court in the said writ petition. Kunj Behari filed special leave petition in the Supreme Court but there also he failed to get any interim order in his favour. On failure to grab the administration of the College through legal process Kunj Behari decided to get an Administrator appointed in the College in place of the petitioners by exerting political pressure. He prevailed upon the State Government to suspend the petitioners under Section 58(2) of the U.P. State Universities Act on 7-3-1983 and issue a notice to them on 8-3-1983 under Section 57 of the Act to show cause as to why Administrator should not be appointed in the College under Section 58(1) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before us that the petitioners have been performing their duties strictly in accordance with law and they have committed no illegality or irregularity so as to entitle the State Government to pass any order against them under section 57 or 58 of the Act. They are not guilty of any of the six charges mentioned in the show cause notice issued to them. According to him, while grounds Nos. 1 and 2 are non est the other grounds Nos. 3 to 6 relate to the previous Executive Committee for which no action could be -taken against them. The learned counsel for the opposite parties contested the claim of the petitioners that grounds Nos. 1 and 2 were non est and that no action could be taken against the petitioners for the acts of the previous Executive Committee. 4. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. The first charge against the petitioners is that there is dispute regarding the election of office bearers of the Executive Committee of the College and the matter is sub judice before this Court. Admittedly, the petitioners were approved by the Vice Chancellor on 4-2-1983 as the new Committee of Management and all attempts of Kunj Behari to get them restrained from functioning as new Committee of Management of the College have failed so far up to the stage of Supreme Court and, therefore, the mere fact that writ petition filed by Kunj Behari against the order dated 4-2-1983 of the Vice Chancellor has been admitted by this Court cannot entitle the State Government to pass any order under Section 57 or 58 of the Act. The second charge against the petitioners is that they have illegally suspended the Principal of the College which has created great resentment among the students and the staff of the college. The second charge against the petitioners is that they have illegally suspended the Principal of the College which has created great resentment among the students and the staff of the college. So far this charge is concerned, according to petitioners, the Principal of the College was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him about some serious charges but the order of suspension was subsequently withdrawn on the intervention of the Vice Chancellor on 5-3-1983 and the Principal, had started functioning on his post before the passing of the impugned order. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government this fact has not been denied that the suspension of the Principal of the College was withdrawn by the petitioners and he was working on his post on the date of the impugned order, but it is asserted that the suspension order was .withdrawn in a light manner only keeping in view that the Government may not take action under the Act'. Thus, the fact remains that this charge was non est on the date of issuing the show cause notice to the petitioners under Section 57 of the Act and as such no action could be taken against them on this basis. Once the suspension of the Principal of the College was withdrawn the motive for doing so is hardly of any significance. In our opinion, even otherwise no such action could be taken against the petitioners for suspending the Principal in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him. 5. This brings us to charges Nos. 3 to 6. All these charges relate to certain irregularities in maintaining the college accounts. Admittedly, these charges relate to the years 1979-80 to 1981-82 when the previous executive Committee with Kunj Behari as its Secretary was in control of the Administration of the College. In our opinion, no action could legally be taken against the petitioners for the illegalities or irregularities committed by their predecessors. If the previous Committee had committed some illegality or irregularity action should have been taken against that Committee of Management but under no circumstance whatsoever the State Government can take action against the petitioners who were elected as new Committee of Management on 19-9-1982. If the previous Committee had committed some illegality or irregularity action should have been taken against that Committee of Management but under no circumstance whatsoever the State Government can take action against the petitioners who were elected as new Committee of Management on 19-9-1982. The claim of the State Government that it was quite competent to take action under Section 57 or 58 of the Act against the petitioners even for the faults of the previous Executive Committee is not correct. The petitioners are duly elected office bearers of Arya Vidya Sabha and have also been recognised as such by the Vice Chancellor, Meerut University and therefore, they are legally entitled to manage the affairs of the College. Their term cannot be curtailed by the State Government under Sections 57, 58 or any provision of law unless they themselves are guilty of committing some serious mistakes in discharge of their duties. Since the petitioners have not committed any illegality or irregularity in discharge of their duties no action can legally be taken by the State Government against them under Ss. 57,58 or any other provision of the Act. 6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The suspension order dated 7-3-1983 and show cause notice dated 8-3-1983 are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to costs of the writ petition.