JUDGMENT J.N. Dubey, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8-2-1982 of the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University, Meerut appointing opposite party no. 3 as Administrator, Rashtriya Kisan College, Shamli, district Muzaffar nagar. 2. Kisan Vidya Sabha, Aryapuri Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar is a Society (hereinafter referred to as the 'society') registered under Societies Registration Act and is governed by its own Bye-laws. The society runs two educational Institutions, namely, Rashtriya Kisan Inter College and Rashtriya Kisan College Shamli. While the management of the society vests in the Executive Committee elected under its Bye-laws, the management of the Inter College and the College vests in their committees of management elected under their respective schemes of Administration. Admittedly, committee of management of the college was elected on 16-5-1976 with Surendra Varma as its President and Jaipal Singh as its Secretary. This committee of management was also formally recognised by the University as would appear from letter dated 25-11-1976. According to the petitioners, on the expiry of the terms of the aforesaid committee of management a new committee of management was elected on 20-5-1979 and intimation of this election was duly sent to the Meerut University and the Director of Education, U.P. On 15-1-1982 the Deputy Registrar of the Meerut University invited the President of the committee of management to meet the Vice-Chancellor on 21-1-1982. The President and the Secretary of the society met the Vice-Chancellor on the appointed date. They were asked to appoint one Sri Hari Singh a teacher as Incharge of the Farm and Dairy of the College. Since Dr. V.S. Verma and Sri C. S. Panwar were already managing the Farm and Dairy of the College respectively they showed their inability to appoint Sri Hari Singh. On 22-1-1982, the Deputy Registrar again invited the President and Secretary of the committee of management to meet the Vice-Chancellor on 28-1-1982. They met the Vice-Chancellor on the appointed date. The Vice-Chancellor asked them to suspend Principal of the college and to hand over charge of the Farm and Dairy to Sri Hari Singh which they refused to do. It is in this background that Vice-Chancellor of the University purporting to act under Section 13 (1) (a) (4) and (6) of the U.P. State Universities Act appointed the opposite party no. 3 as Administrator of the college. It is in this background that Vice-Chancellor of the University purporting to act under Section 13 (1) (a) (4) and (6) of the U.P. State Universities Act appointed the opposite party no. 3 as Administrator of the college. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was admitted on 16-2-1982 and the operation of the order dated 8-2-1982 of the Vice-Chancellor was stayed. It appears that after obtaining the stay order from this Court the petitioners wanted to hold elections for new committee of management and, therefore, the opposite parties moved an application on 14-5-1982 for modification of the aforesaid stay order, which was directed to be listed for orders on 24-5-1982 and in the meanwhile the petitioners were restrained from holding elections of the committee of management of the college. The stay order was ultimately modified on 24-5-1982 as under "Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, direct that the operation of the impugned order dated 8th of February 1982 passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut" University shall remain stayed subject to the injunction which has already been issued by this court on 14-5-1982 to the effect that the petitioners shall not be entitled to hold the elections of the committee of management of the college under the order of stay. However, if the District Magistrate Muzaffarnagar nominates an interim Administrator for performing the duties and functions assigned to Sri Raj Singh under the impugned order for the pendency of this petition, the interim orders shall stand automatically vacated with effect from the date of such appointment. The Administrator so appointed by the District Magistrate shall have the same powers and perform the same duties which were conferred or imposed on Shri Raj Singh under the impugned order dated 8-2-1982. The parties may immediately approach the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar for nomination of a suitable person for the purpose indicated above. The nomination may be made by the District Magistrate latest within one week of the approach by the parties. Sd/-A.N.V. 24-5-1982." 3. The S.D.M. Khairnagar who was appointed as Administrator of the college by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar did not take any Steps to hold elections of the committee of management of the college and as such on 25-5-1983 this court directed him to hold the said election within a period of two months. Sd/-A.N.V. 24-5-1982." 3. The S.D.M. Khairnagar who was appointed as Administrator of the college by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar did not take any Steps to hold elections of the committee of management of the college and as such on 25-5-1983 this court directed him to hold the said election within a period of two months. On 18-6-1983 the Administrator circulated agenda holding elections of the Executive Committee of the society on 4-7-1983, The secretary of the society filed objection to the Administrator saying that the election of the society had already taken place and he had only to hold election of the committee of management of the college. The Administrator, however, without caring for the objections completed the election of the executive committee of society and thereafter also held election for committee of management of both the colleges. The petitioners have, therefore, also challenged the validity of these elections before us. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Vice-Chancellor had no authority under the U.P. State Universities Act to appoint Administrator in the college and even assuming that he was competent to appoint Administrator he could not do so without affording the petitioners an opportunity to show cause. He has further contended that the Administrator had absolutely no jurisdiction to elect the executive committee of the society and then elect the committee of management of at he college and as such the election of the executive committee of the society as well as the committee of management of the college are wholly null and void. He has further contended that the Administrator had absolutely no jurisdiction to elect the executive committee of the society and then elect the committee of management of at he college and as such the election of the executive committee of the society as well as the committee of management of the college are wholly null and void. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the Vice-Chancellor as quite competent to appoint Administrator under Section 13 (1) (a), 14) and (6) of the Act as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management of Janta Vedic College Baraut and other v. The Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University Meerut and another, AIR 1983 Alld 128 : 7 1982 UPLBEC 574 He has also contended that under the scheme of Administration of the college, the Committee of management is to be elected by the Executive Committee of the society from amongst its members and, therefore, in order to hold elections of the committee of Management it became necessary for the Administrator to first hold elections of the executive committee of the society itself. 5. Having gone through the decision of this Court in Committee of Management of Janta Vedic College Baraut and others v. The Vice Chancellor Meerut University Meerut and another (supra) we are of the opinion that this decision requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. The Division Bench in that case has held that in urgent case the Vice-Chancellor can appoint Administrator under Section 13 (1) (a), (4) and (6) of the Act, Section 57 of the Act authorises the state Government to issue notice to the Committee of Management to show cause why an authorised Controller may not be appointed under Section 58 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act empowers the State Government to appoint authorised Controller after considering the explanation submitted by the Committee of Management of the show cause notice issued to it under Section 57 while Sub-section (2) of Section 58 empowers the State Government to suspend the committee of management and appoint an administrator while issuing notice under Section 57 if it is of opinion that immediate action is necessary in the interest of the college. Thus, we find that the power to appoint Administrator has been specifically conferred upon the State Government and that the power has to be exercised after giving opportunity to the committee of management to show cause. The legislature has also taken care of the cases in which immediate action is necessary in the interest of college by empowering the State Government to suspend the committee of management while issuing notice under Section 57. There is no provision under the Act authorising the Vice Chancellor either to suspend the committee of management or to appoint authorised controller in its place. The Vice-Chancellor has therefore, taken help of Section 13 of the Act which deals with his general powers. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the Vice-Chancellor is legally competent to appoint Administrator under Section 13 of the Act which runs as under : "13. Powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor - (I) The Vice Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University and Shall - (a) exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University including the constituent colleges and the institutes, affiliated and associated colleges ; (b) give effect to the decisions of the authorities of the University ; (c) in the absence of the Chancellor, preside at meetings of the court and at any convocation of the University ; (d) be responsible for the maintenance of discipline in the University ; (e) be responsible for holding and conducting the University examinations properly and at due times and for ensuring that the results of such examinations are published expeditiously and that the academic session of the University starts and ends on proper dates - (2) He shall be an ex officio member and Chairman of the Executive Council, Academic Council and the Finance Committee. (3) He shall have the right to speak in and otherwise to take part in the meeting of any other authority or body of the University but shall not by virtue of this Sub-section be entitled to vote. (4) It shall be the duty of the Vice Chancellor to ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this Act, the statutes and the ordinance and he shall, without prejudice to the powers of the Chancellor (under Sections 10 and 68) possess all such powers as may be necessary in that behalf. (4) It shall be the duty of the Vice Chancellor to ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this Act, the statutes and the ordinance and he shall, without prejudice to the powers of the Chancellor (under Sections 10 and 68) possess all such powers as may be necessary in that behalf. (5) The Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to convene or cause to be convened meetings of the Executive Council, the Court, the Academic Council and the Finance Committee. Provided that he may delegate this power to any other officer of the University. (6) Where any matter is of urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same could not be immediately dealt with by any officer or the authority or other body of the University empowered by or under this Act to deal with it, the Vice-Chancellor may take such action as he may deem fit and Shall forth with report the action taken by him to the Chancellor made also to the officer, authority or other body who or which in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter : Provided that no Such action shall be taken by the Vice-Chancellor without the previous approval of the Chancellor if it would involve a deviation from the provision of the statutes or the ordinances: Provided further that if the officers, authority or other body is of opinion that such action ought not to have been taken it may refer the matter to the Chancellor who may either confirm the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor or annul the same or modify it in such manner, as he thinks fit and thereupon, it shall cease to have affect or, as the case may be, taken effect in the modified from, so however, that such annulment or modification shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done by or under the order of the Vice-Chancellor ; Provided also that any person in the service of University who is aggrieved by the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor under this Sub-section Shall have the right to appeal against such action to the Executive Council within three months from the date on which decision on such action is communicated to him and thereupon the Executive Council may confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor. (7) Nothing in Sub-section (6) shall be deemed to empower the Vice-Chancellor to incur any expenditure not duly authorised and provided for in the budget. (8) where the exercise of the power by the Vice-Chancellor under subsection (6) involves the appointment of an officer or a teacher of the University, such appointment Shall terminate on appointment being made in the prescribed manner or on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the order of the Vice-Chancellor whichever is earlier. (9) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers as may be laid down by the statutes and the Ordinances. 6. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall be the Principal Executive and Academic Officer of the University and Shall (a) exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University including the constituent colleges and the Institutes maintained by the University and its affiliated and associated colleges. In our opinion, no administrator can be legally appointed by the Vice-Chancellor in its general supervisory powers. Sub-section (4) provides that it shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinance. In this provision also the Vice-Chancellor cannot appoint Administrator of a college. The duty cast upon him is to ensure the faithfull observance of the various provisions of the Act, Statutes and Ordinance which cannot be taken as to authorising him to do which he is not otherwise competent to do. As a matter of fact he will himself be violating this provision by attempting to exercise the powers otherwise conferred upon the State Government under Sections 57 and 58 of the Act. This brings us to Sub-section (6) which provided where any matter is of urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same could not be immediately dealt with by any officer or the authority or other body of the University, the Vice-Chancellor may take such action as he may deem fit. Although the Division Bench in Committee of Management of India Vedic College Baraut and others v. The Vice Chancellor Meerut University Meerut and another (supra) has not quoted the provisions of Section 13 but it appears that Sub-section (6) is the basis of that judgment. Although the Division Bench in Committee of Management of India Vedic College Baraut and others v. The Vice Chancellor Meerut University Meerut and another (supra) has not quoted the provisions of Section 13 but it appears that Sub-section (6) is the basis of that judgment. Under Sub-section (6) the Vice-Chancellor can perform the functions of any officer or the authority or other body of the University in a matter of urgency. Thus, the Vice-Chancellor can perform certain functions of any officer or the authority or other body of the University but as the State Government is neither an officer nor the authority nor the other body of the University, its functions under Section 5 7 and 58 of the Act cannot be legally performed by the Vice Chancellor even in the matters of urgency. It is significant to note that all the actions taken by the Vice-Chancellor under Sub-section (6) have to be forthwith reported to the Chancellor and also to the officer or authority or the body who or which in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter. Not only this in certain cases he had to obtain prior approval of the Chancellor. Similarly, if the officer or authority or the body is of the opinion that such action ought not to have been taken he may be for them after to the Chancellor who may either confirm, annul or modify the action In certain cases against the action of the Vice-Chancellor under this Sub-section appeal has been provided to the executive committee. It is, thus, clear that even in the matters of urgency the Vice-Chancellor can perform certain functions of an officer, authority or other body of the University and certainly not of the State Government. We also find it difficult to agree with the Division Bench on the point that appointment of Administrator can ever be of such urgency as to empower the Vice-Chancellor to exercise his power under Sub-section (6) of Section 13, even assuming that Administrator can be appointed under that provision. As stated above Legislature by providing for suspension of the Committee of Management and appoint administrator while issuing notice to it under Section 57 of the Act has itself taken care of meeting the emergency. As stated above Legislature by providing for suspension of the Committee of Management and appoint administrator while issuing notice to it under Section 57 of the Act has itself taken care of meeting the emergency. The Committee of management of a college is an elected body and is entitled to function for a full term of three years subject to any action which may be taken by the Stats Government under Sections 57 & 58 of the Act. It is unthinkable that an elected statutory body which is responsible for administration of the college can in any manner create such an emergency which cannot even be met even by placing it under suspension under Sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Act and appointment of administrator. The action under Section 57 and Section 58 (2) can be taken in such a short time that even if the Committee of management is guilty of creating some emergency it can suitably be met. We are, therefore, of the opinion that even on the ground of urgency the appointment of the Administrator could not be legally justified but as we have already held the Vice-Chancellor is otherwise also not competent to take such action. It is now well settled that if legislature confers some power on a particular authority that it has to be exercised by that authority unless there is some provision for delegation of the power to some other authority and that the power is actually delegated. In this case the power to appoint Administrator has been specifically conferred upon the State Government and, therefore, it has to be exercised by the State Government and by none else. There is also no provision for delegation of this power to the Vice-Chancellor or any other authority of the University and, therefore, the question of power being delegated to any body does not arise. Moreover, if the legislature had an intention of providing this power to Vice-Chancellor in the cases of emergency it could have specifically provided for it under the Act but as already held above there can be no cases of emergency which cannot be taken care of under Sections 57 and 58 and therefore, the Legislature has rightly not conferred any power upon the Vice-Chancellor to appoint Administrator. In our opinion, the reasoning of the Division Bench in the aforesaid case that the Administrator under Section 13 (1) (a), (4) and (6) is appointed by the Vice-Chancellor as a temporary mean sure for a very short period to meet the urgency and, therefore, the two powers one conferred on the State Government and the other conferred on the Vice-Chancellor not competing with each other, is also not correct. Whenever a Vice-Chancellor appoints administrator he also authorises him to hold election of the new committee of management. This being so not only the rights of the existing committee of management to manage the affairs of the college is taken away but its right to hold election of its successors is also taken away. The committee of Management elected by the Administrator also has the same term of three years and thus it cannot be said that the appointment of - the Administrator by the Vice-Chancellor is a temporary measure. 7. We also find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the Vice-Chancellor was competent to appoint Administrator under Section 13 (1) (a), (4) and (6) of the Act he could not do so without issuing notice to the petitioner to show cause. When even the State Government cannot appoint an authorised controller under Section 58 without affording an opportunity to a committee of management under Section 57 of the Act the Vice-Chancellor can certainly not do so under Section 13 (1) (a), (4) and (6). The committee of Management which is a statutory elective body is legally entitled to function for its full term of three years and, therefore, if some authority wants to curtail their term it has to naturally afford it an opportunity to show cause. In this particular ease, admittedly no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned order and as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed on his ground alone. 8. In our opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Administrator appointed by the District Magistrate had no authority to hold election of the executive committee of the society also, has substance. The society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and its executive committee is elected in accordance with its own Bye-laws and the dispute regarding elections are decided by the authorities under that Act. The society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and its executive committee is elected in accordance with its own Bye-laws and the dispute regarding elections are decided by the authorities under that Act. On the other hand, the Committee of Management of the college elected in accordance with its approved scheme of administration under the U.P. State Universities Act and the dispute regarding its election is decided by the authorities under that Act. Thus, the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University who is an authority under the U.P. State Universities Act has got no control over the affairs of the Society. 9. On 8-2-1982 the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his power under section 13 (1) (a), (4) and (6) of the Act anti Statute 1305 (f) of the First Statute of the Meerut University appointed Sri Raj Singh as Administrator for the college who was to function till the elections of the new committee of management were held. This Court while staying the operation of the order of the Vice-Chancellor directed the District Magistrate to appoint new administrator who could hold elections of the committee of management of the College in accordance with law. Neither the Administrator appointed by the Vice-Chancellor nor the Administrator appointed by the District Magistrate under the orders of this Court had jurisdiction to hold the elections of the executive committee of the society. The Administrator was appointed by the Vice-Chancellor for the college and therefore, he could hold elections only for the Committee of Management of the college. Similarly the Administrator appointed by the District Magistrate under the orders of this Court was for the college and as such he could also hold elections only for the Committee of Management of the college. We confess our inability to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties that as the committees of management of the two colleges were elected by the executive committee of the society from among its members it became necessary for the Administrator to hold elections of the executive committee of the society before holding elections of the two committee of management. When the Administrator was directed to hold elections of the committee of management of the college only he had absolutely no jurisdiction to hold the elections of the executive committee of the society on the ground that if the committees of management of the two colleges were elected from among the members of the existing executive committee the vary purpose of appointing the administrator would have been defeated. May it be so, when the law did not permit the Vice Chancellor to appoint Administrator of the society, the Administrator appointed by him or the District Magistrate under the orders of this Court was not legally competent to hold elections of the executive committee of the society. In our opinion, the Administrator travelled beyond his jurisdiction in holding election for the executive committee of the society. 10. Since the petitioners cannot be granted effective relief without talking view contrary to the decision of this court in Committee of Management of Janta Vedic College, Baraut and others v. The Vice Chancellor Meerut University Meerut and another (supra) which is not possible for us to do being a Court of co - ordinate jurisdiction, we therefore, feel that this point may be decided by a larger bench. We accordingly direct that the papers of this writ petition be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for deciding the dispute between the parties.