Saikia, C J. — Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.K.Homchoudhury. Heard also Mr. P. Prasad, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam. The petitioner as the President of the managing committee of the Nabarun Middle School, Bijni impugns the order of the District Ele­mentary Officer, Kokrajhar dated 28.11.86 (Annexure-2 to the petition) dissolving the managing committee of the School and constituting an ad-hoc managing committee in its place and the appellate order of the Director of Elementary Education. Assam, dated 29.10. 1987 rejecting the petitioner's appeal. 3. By order dated .7.5.86, the District Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar constituted the managing committee of Nabarun Middle School, Bijni for 'a .period of 3 years w.e.f. the date of issue of that order with the petitioner as its president. In the impugned order dated 28.11.86 (Andnexure-2 to the petition) it is stated that as per complain received by the District Elementary Education Officer and pursuant to a proposal from the D. I. of Schools, Kokrajhar vide his letter dated 24.11.86 the managing committee of the School was dissolved and in its place an ad-hoc managing committee was constituted. The petitioner as the president of the managing committee appealed to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam under Rule 10 of the Assam Elementary Education"(Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 submitting, inter alia, that the managing committee had been discharging its duties and responsibilities honestly and diligently and nothing had been done by it to justify its dissolution and that had the committee been given opportunity to show cause it could easily rebut the allegations stated to have been made by a section of public which were baseless and unfounded ; and that disso­lution of the managing committee without giving it an opportunity of being heard was unjust and violative of principles of natural justice. It transpires that neither the impugned order of dissolution nor in the appeal filed by the petitioner there was mention of any specific complain and/or irregularity. In the appellate order dated 29.10.87 also we do not find any specific allegation or complain. In that sense the impugned order and the appellate order appear to be tight lipped. It is, however, clear that the impugned order mentions about the complain being received against the managing committee. In the appellate order dated 29.10.87 also we do not find any specific allegation or complain. In that sense the impugned order and the appellate order appear to be tight lipped. It is, however, clear that the impugned order mentions about the complain being received against the managing committee. In the appellate order it has •been said that on receipt of the appeal and the earlier order of the High Court the District Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar was reque­sted on 24.3.87 to furnish the required materials on the aforesaid case and the District Elementary Education Officer submitted some docu­ments, vide his letter dated 14.10.87 to the effect that on 21.10.86 an allegation from one Shri Sushil Kr. Das, a member of Nabarun Middle School'was received against the managing committee and the D.I. of Schools Kokrajhar recommended necessary action. The allegation was forwarded by a member of the Sub-divisional Advisory Board for Elementary Education, Kokrajhar on receipt of which the District Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar had appointed the Block Elementary Education Officer, Manikpur Block as an enquiry officer to enquire into the matter and submitted his report through the Dy. Inspector of schools, Kokrajhar on 14.11.86 who by going through it recommended the same to the District Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar for necessary action and upon seeing the enquiry report the Director of Elementary Education found some irregularities committed by the then managing committee which .Were detrimental to the interest of institution as well as public and hence the appeal was rejected, 4. Mr. S. K. Homchouhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dissolution of the managing committee without giving them Jan opportunity was void ab-initio being violative of principles of natural /justice?) We find force in this contention. Admittedly the school comes under the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1974 and the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 pre applicable. Part-II of these Rules deal with constitution of mana­ging committee. Under sub-rule 3 the term of the managing committee shall be 3 years from the date of constitution, after which it shall be reconstituted. There could therefore be not doubt that the managing committee constituted on 7.5.86 was to continue upto 6th May, 1989. The question may arise as to whether the President ship or Membership of the managing committee amounted to office and the petitioner and the other members could be said to have held offices. There could therefore be not doubt that the managing committee constituted on 7.5.86 was to continue upto 6th May, 1989. The question may arise as to whether the President ship or Membership of the managing committee amounted to office and the petitioner and the other members could be said to have held offices. Without deciding this question in this case it is clear that the managing committee was dissolved as a result of certain complains received against the managing committee. The dissolution therefore could be interpreted as measure-of punishment because of the complains and it appears that no enquiry was held before the order of dissolution was passed. There is no 'material to show that any opportunity was given for the managing 'committee before passing the order of dissolution and constitution of the ad-hoc committee. The submission of Mr. Homchoudhury that the managing committee 'was not given any opportunity whatsoever of being heard before its dissolution has therefore to be accepted. It is one of the basic principle of natural justice that the other party should be heard. Even though the Presidentship or Membership of the managing committee did not entail any economic benefit, it surely had benefit of status and the managing committee could not be deprived thereof on the basis of complains without hearing it?) Rule 9 of the Rules deal with dissolution of the Managing Committee. It says:- "9. Dissolution of the Managing Committee-(l) The D.I. may, on the recommendation of the S. I. dissolve a Managing Committee if, judging from the facts stated by the S.I., or from the facts found by him during enquiry, he is convinced that the continuance of the existing Managing Committee "in office shall be detrimental to the interest of the School and shall constitute a new Managing Committee". This Rule envisages an enquiry and also recommendation of the S.I. The Rule itself does not expressly provide for giving an opportunity. However, by now it is settled that where there is no mention of natural justice in a statutory provision the same should be interpreted in consonance with the principles of natural justice unless it is specifically excluded. There is no specific exclusion in the instant case. However, by now it is settled that where there is no mention of natural justice in a statutory provision the same should be interpreted in consonance with the principles of natural justice unless it is specifically excluded. There is no specific exclusion in the instant case. Besides in none of the impugned orders we gather any idea as to what were the allegations and what were their nature and gravity and how the management of the school would be affected thereby. 5. Under the above predicament Mr., Prasad is fairly not opposed to the idea of the managing committee being given an opportunity of being heard on the allegation. We are of the view that the dissolution of managing committee without disclosing the allegations and without hearing it on them was violative of the principles of natural justice and it cannot be sustained in law. We accordingly set aside the order dated 28.11.86. (Annexure-2 to the petition) as well as the appellate order dated 29.10 87 (Annexure-4 to the petition) and leave it open to the District Elementary Education officer, Kokrajhar to give the managing Committee an opportunity of being heard on the allegation received and to decide the matter on Its merit after such hearing. The petitioner and the managing Committee shall have their right under the Rules, if aggrieved by such a decision taken by the District Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar. Till such a decision is taken the managing committee constituted by order dated 7.5.86 (Annexure-1 to the petition) shall continue in office. Under the above circumstances, it will be for the District Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar, to give an opportunity and hear the managing Committee as expeditiously as it is possible for him. 6. In the result, with the above observations and directions this petition is disposed of.