JUDGMENT O.P. Saxena, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the appointment of Authorised Controller and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the management of the institution by petitioner No. 2. 2. There is Soni Thapa Khandelwal Balika Inter College, Maunath Bhanjan, Azamgarh, The election of the Committee of Management took place in August 1981. The petitioner No. 2 was elected Manager. On 22-3-1973, the State Government had made a grant of Rs. 34,000/- for purchasing a bus for the students. The then Committee of Management could not purchase the bus as by the time of the grant, the price of bus had increased considerably. One verandah and several rooms of the school fell down in March 1973. The Committee of Management got the rooms and verandah reconstructed at an expense of Rs. 41,500/-. As they were short of funds, they spent Rs. 19,000/- given by the State Government for the purchase of bus. After notices under sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Section 16D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the replies sent by the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 Director of Education appointed respondent No.S Principal, Government Inter College, Azamgarh Authorised Controller of the institution vide order dated 31st July 1984 (Annexxure-11). The petitioners had deposited Rs. 2,000/- on 3-1-84 and had prayed for permission to pay balance in 16 monthly instalments. 3. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 31st July 1984 inter alia on the grounds that no case for appointment of Authorised Controller was made under Section 16-D (4) of the Act, that the impugned order gives no reasons, that the charges relate to the period of the earlier Committee of Management and there was no charge of the period of the present Committee of Management, that the State Government has ignored the recommendations made by the Director of Education and District Inspector of Schools, that the State Government did not consider the reply filed by the petitioners, that the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, and that the order is illegal and suffers from manifest error of laws. 4. 4. The respondents contested the petition inter alia on the allegations that the present Committee of Management is responsible for its own acts as well as acts of the former Committees of Management, that on 7-3-84, respondent No. 2 Director of Education directed respondent No. 3 the Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools to realise the amount as well as interest from the petitioners, that on 1-6-84, the respondent No. 3 called upon the petitioners to deposit the amount with interest immediately, that the petitioners did not deposit the amount, that they did not comply with the objections to the audit report, that they committed financial irregularities and that the impugned order has been validly and properly passed. 5. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioners denied the allegations made in the counter- affidavit and reiterated the grounds taken in the petition. 6. We have heard Sri L. P. Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. L. Ganguly, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and are disposing of the petition on merits at admission stage. 7. There were given charges against the Committee of Management vide show cause notice dated 2-2-82, Annexure-1. In the impugned order dated 31-7-84, Annexure-11, action was taken in respect of two charges as the explanation of the petitioners in respect of other three charges was found satisfactory and the same were presumably dropped. The first charge was that the grant of Rs. 34,000/- made for the purchase of the bus was utilised for other purposes and was not deposited when called upon to do so. The second charge was that audit objections for 1974-75 and 1975-76 were not removed. 8. Sri L. P. Naithani submitted that no action under Section 16-D(4) of the Act can be taken for the acts and omission of the former Committee of Management. 9. Sri N. L. Ganguly urged that the present Committee of Management is also responsible for the acts of omission and commission of the former Committees of Management. If the petitioners' contention is accepted it would not be possible for Director of Education to maintain proper supervision over the Committees of Management. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us and we will refer to the scheme under the Act for a proper appreciation of the submissions made before us. 11. If the petitioners' contention is accepted it would not be possible for Director of Education to maintain proper supervision over the Committees of Management. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us and we will refer to the scheme under the Act for a proper appreciation of the submissions made before us. 11. Section 16-D(1) provides : "The Director may cause a recognised institution to be inspected from time to time." Section 16-D(2) provides : "The Director may direct a managment to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise." Section 16-D(3) provides :- "If on the receipt of information or otherwise, the Director is satisfied that- (i) the Committee of Management of an institution has failed to comply with the judgment of any court or any direction made under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, or" Sub-cl. (v) of Section 16-D(3) provides : "the Committee has substantially diverted, misapplied or misappropriated the property of the institution to its detriment or has transferred any property in contravention of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974 (U.P. Act No. 3 of 1975)." After enumerating sub-clauses (i) to (vii), Section 16-D(3) provides : "he may refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition of such institution, or issue notice to the Committee of Management to show cause within thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice why an order under sub-section (4) should not be made." Sec. 16-D(4) provides : Where the Committee of Management of an institution fails to show cause within the time allowed under sub-section (3) or within such extended time as the Director may from time to time allow, or where the Director is, after considering the cause shown by the Committee of Management, satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section(3) exists, he may, recommend to the State Government to appoint an Authorised Controller for that institution, and thereupon, authorise any person (hereinafter referred to as the Authorised Controller) to take over, for such period not exceeding two years, as may be specified, the Management of such institution and its properties. Provided that if the State Government is of opinion that it is expedient so to do in order to continue to secure the proper management of the institution and its properties, it may, from time to time extend the operation of the order, for such period, not exceeding one year at a time, as it may specify, so however, that the total period of operation of the order, including the period specified in the initial order, but excluding the period specified in sub-section (8) does not exceed five years : Provided further that if at the expiration of the said period of five years, there is no Lawfully constituted Committee of Management of the institution, the Authorised Controller shall continue to function as such, until the State Government is satisfied that a Committee of Management has been lawfully constituted." Section 16-D(5) provides : "If on the receipt of information or otherwise, the State Government is of opinion that in relation to an institution the ground mentioned in Clause (iii) or Clause (v) of sub- section (3) exists, and that the interest of the institution calls for immediate action, it may, notwithstanding anything contained in the said sub-section, issue notice to the Management of such institution to show cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such notice why an Authorised Controller be not appointed in respect of such institution." Section 16-D(6) provides : "Where the Committee of Management of the concerned institution fails to show cause within the time allowed under sub-section (5), or within such extended time as the State Government may, from time to time, or where the State Government is, after considering the cause shown by the Committee of Management, satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in clause (iii) or clause (v) of sub- section (3) exists, it may, by order and for reasons to be recorded, appoint an Authorised Controller in respect of such institution, and thereupon, the provisions of sub-section (4) shall, mutatis mutandis apply." 12. The scheme of the Act as envisaged in Section 16-D of the Act is for the supervision of the management of the institution by the Director to ensure that the Committee of Management acts in the best interests of the institution. 13. The scheme of the Act as envisaged in Section 16-D of the Act is for the supervision of the management of the institution by the Director to ensure that the Committee of Management acts in the best interests of the institution. 13. The use of the word `has' in sub- clauses (i) to (v) of Section 16-D(3) of the Act, cannot limit the powers of the-Director to the acts and omissions of the present Committee of Management. 14. In Gappulal v. Shriji Dwarkadheeshji, AIR 1969 SC 1291 , the Supreme Court interpreted `has sublet' in Section 13(1)(e) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act and held in para 9 that the present perfect tense contemplates a completed event connected in some way with the present time. 15. In Mangi Lal v. District and Sessions Judge, 1980 All WC 33, a Full Bench of this Court referred to the decisions of Supreme Court in Gappu Lal (supra), Gajanan Dattatraya v. Sherbanu Hosang, AIR 1975 SC 2156 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Peer Mohd., AIR 1963 SC 645 and held in para 43 that the word "has" does not have a rigid or fixed connotation. It takes its true meaning from the context of the Act. This decision was followed in Smt. Keshar Bai v. District Judge, 1980 All WC 385 (FB). 16. The Director may receive information about the acts of omission or commission of a committee of Management after the expiry of the term. It will defeat the purpose of the Act if it is accepted that the Director can proceed only when the present Committee of Management has done any of the acts specified in sub-clauses (i) to (v). A new Committee of Management takes over the management of the assets of the institution and is also responsible for the liabilities incurred by the erstwhile Committees of Management. A committee of Management is a continuing body and is liable not only for its acts of omission or commission but also for the acts of the former Committee of Management. 17. In it, Registrar Co-operative Societies, Madras v. Rajagopal, AIR 1970 SC 992 , para 9 at p. 996, there was supersession of a Co- operative Society under Section 72(1)(a) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act. 17. In it, Registrar Co-operative Societies, Madras v. Rajagopal, AIR 1970 SC 992 , para 9 at p. 996, there was supersession of a Co- operative Society under Section 72(1)(a) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act. The -Supreme Court repelled the plea that as one third members of the managing committee retire every year and fresh members are elected, it would be unfair to the new members to supersede the Society in 1968 in respect of grave irregularities committed in 1964 and 1965. It was held that the object of supersession is to appoint a special officer or a managing committee. It was observed that it is not difficult to envisage a situation where mal- administration by a committee has so adversely affected the functioning of the Society that it is essential in the interests of the Society itself to give temporarily the control of the affairs to a neutral authority. 18. In N.R.M.E. Coronation College Association Khurja v. State, 1979 All LJ 1103, a similar plea was urged in the case of a Committee of Management of a college governed by Section 57 of the State Universities Act, 1973 and was repelled by a Division Bench of this Court. 19. We are thus unable to accept the contention that the Director of Education cannot take action against a Committee of Management for acts and omissions of the former Committee of Management. There may be defects and financial irregularities which can be rectified by the new Committee of Management and the Director can call upon the latter to remove the same within a reasonable time and in the event of failure, he can move the State Government for appointment of Authorised Controller. 20. The dividing line between administrative power and a quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 at p. 154. Even in administrative proceedings, which involve civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable : Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 . Any decision' whether executive, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial is no decision if it cannot be just, i.e. an impartial and objective assessment of all the pros and cons of a case after hearing the parties concerned. Mohd. Rashid v. State of U.P., AIR 1979 SC 592 . Any decision' whether executive, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial is no decision if it cannot be just, i.e. an impartial and objective assessment of all the pros and cons of a case after hearing the parties concerned. Mohd. Rashid v. State of U.P., AIR 1979 SC 592 . The Executive have to reach their decision by taking into account relevant material. They should not refuse to consider relevant material nor should they take into account wholly irrelevant or extraneous considerations (Motchive Gammon v. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 SC 2226 at p. 2234 para 13). Reasons are links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusion. They disclose as to how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is administrative or quasi-judicial. They should serve a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached : Union of India v. M.L. Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 at p. 88. The Courts have power to see that the Executive acts lawfully. It is no answer that the Executive acted bona fide nor that they have bestowed painstaking consideration. They cannot avoid scrutiny by Courts by failing to give reasons Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 SC 2226 . When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, the validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the form of affidavit or otherwise Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., AIR 1978 SC 851 . We will examine the validity of the impugned order in the light of the legal position. 21. The impugned order Annexure 11 shows that it stated the conclusions, but gave no reasons. In S. S. B. L. Inter College v. State, 1979 All CJ 522, a Division Bench of this Court held that the appointment of Authorised Controller under Section 16-D of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 should not have only conclusions, but also reasons. In Annexure 7 dated 27-12-83, the District Inspector of Schools wrote to the Director of Education that the grant of Rs. 34,000/- for the purchase of bus was made in the year 1973. The Manager's version was that by the time the grant was received, the price of bus had increased considerably and the bus could not be purchased. A sum of Rs. 34,000/- for the purchase of bus was made in the year 1973. The Manager's version was that by the time the grant was received, the price of bus had increased considerably and the bus could not be purchased. A sum of Rs. 56,000/- was given as aid to other schools for purchasing bus. In March, 1973, a varandah and several rooms fell down. It became difficult for students to enter the school. As the bus could not be purchased for Rs. 34,000/- the amount was spent in reconstructing the verandah and rooms. The Manager submitted the details of expenditure to the District Inspector of Schools. The Manager also stated that the amount of Rs. 34,000/- was spent in anticipation of grant for building which was not received. The Manager spent Rs. 19002.71 p. towards payment of salaries for the period for which the State Government was responsible under the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. The Managers' grievance was that the said amount was not refunded. The District Inspector of Schools verified that a sum of Rs. 45,838,94 p. was spent in reconstruction and recommended that the sum of Rs. 19002.71 p. payable to the institution be adjusted to wars the sum of Rs. 34000/-. In the alternative it was recommended that the Manager be allowed to refund the grant of Rs. 34,000/- in easy instalments. 22. Annexure 8 dated 12-1-84 is the letter sent by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. It was said that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was deposited on 3-1-84 and it was prayed that the State Government may be moved to permit the payment of Rs. 32,000/- in 16 easy instalments. As far as the audit objections for 1974-75 and 1975-76, it was said that it was not clear as to what were the objections. 23. Annexure 9 dated 25-1-84 is the letter sent by the Director of Education to the State Government. It was said that the bus could not be purchase due to increase of prices and the grant was utilised in reconstructing the verandah rooms. The approved plan {n the account of expenditure was forwarded to a Government. It was mentioned that no building grant was given to the institution and the sum of Rs. 19002.71 p. was not refunded to the institution. The approved plan {n the account of expenditure was forwarded to a Government. It was mentioned that no building grant was given to the institution and the sum of Rs. 19002.71 p. was not refunded to the institution. It was said that the Manager ha, not disowned the acts of the previous Managers but had agreed to refund the amount 4n easy instalments. The Director of Education recommended one instalment of Rs. 10,000/- and 5 instalments of Rs. 6000/-. He was satisfied,,that the petitioners had no means to pay the entire amount in a lump sum. He was satisfied about the bona fides of the petitioners and recommended exemption from payment of interest. 24. The impugned order did not take into account that the bus could not be purchased because the price of buses had increased, that a grant of Rs. 56,000/- had been made to, other institutions for purchase of bus, that there was compelling need of reconstructing the verandah and rooms which fell down in March 1973, that no building grant had been given to the institution, that a sum of Rs. 45,838.94 p. was actually spent in reconstruction, that a sum of Rs. 19002.17 p. was not refunded to the institution, that the Director of Education recommended the refund of Rs. 19002.17 p. which was not made by the Government, that the Director recommended instalments and exemption from payment of interest, that the Director was satisfied that the Manager was not disowning the acts of the previous Managers and that the Manager was willing to deposit the balance in easy instalments. 25. The impugned order did not consider the petitioner's reply to audit objections, vide Annexures 4A and 4B. 26. The impugned order, while considering the charge that the Committee of Management did not deposit Rs. 34,000/-when called upon to do so, did not consider the petitioners' case, the recommendations of the authorities and orders passed in this connection. The petitioners had prayed for permission to deposit Rs. 32,000/- in 16 monthly instalments. They had deposited Rs. 2,000/- on 3-1-84. Annexure 10 is a letter dated 25-3-84 sent by the Director of Education to District Inspector of Schools in compliance of Government Order dated 7th March 1984. It was said that the petitioners should be call upon to deposit the amount due in 5 or 6 instalments. 32,000/- in 16 monthly instalments. They had deposited Rs. 2,000/- on 3-1-84. Annexure 10 is a letter dated 25-3-84 sent by the Director of Education to District Inspector of Schools in compliance of Government Order dated 7th March 1984. It was said that the petitioners should be call upon to deposit the amount due in 5 or 6 instalments. A copy was sent to Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools also. Annexure 2 (counter-affidavit) is a letter dated 1-6-84 sent by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools to the petitioner No. 2 in compliance of the letter of the Director of Education. He was directed to deposit the amount due in 5 or 6 instalments. Some one had to decide as to whether the petitioner No. 2 should be called upon to deposit the amount in 5 instalments or 6 instalments and when the first instalment should be deposited. The letter was, however, sent without any sense of responsibility and everything was left to the petitioner No. 2. The impugned order was passed on 31-7-84 and it did not consider as to whether the petitioner No. 2 had specify instructions and reasonable opportunity of complying with the same. 27. We are thus satisfied that the impugned order is vitiated as it gave only the conclusions and not the reasons and did not take into consideration relevant material without considering which a just decision could not be taken. The impugned order is liable to be quashed. As the term of petitioner No. 1 Committee of Management has expired we consider it desirable that fresh elections should be held. We also hope that the State Government will decide the question of refund of Rs. 19002.71 as recommended by the Director of Education at an early date. The Director of Education has reported about the inadequate means of the petitioner. The refund will facilitate the compliance of Government's own order. 28. ' The petition is allowed and the order dated 31st July 1984 (Annexure 11) is quashed. The District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh is directed to look after the disbursement of salaries and other urgent matter concerning the Management of the institution. He is further directed to hold an election of new Managing Committee in accordance with the approved Scheme of Administration within three months of the service of the copy of this order. The District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh is directed to look after the disbursement of salaries and other urgent matter concerning the Management of the institution. He is further directed to hold an election of new Managing Committee in accordance with the approved Scheme of Administration within three months of the service of the copy of this order. After the elections have been held the Management of the institution will be transferred to the newly elected Managing Committee who will be responsible for depositing the amount due in 6 monthly instalments as directed by the State Government and Director of Education, Allahabad. The first instalment will be payable immediately after the expiry of two months of the transfer of management to the newly elected Committee of Management. The remaining instalments will be payable on the same date in the following months. We make no order as to costs.