JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru and R.S. Dhavan, JJ. - Heard Mr. S.N. Verma, Senior Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R.D. Misra, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. 2. There is an institution known as the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, which is run by a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. There is a dispute about the election of the Committee of the Management of the said institution. The petitioners claim that they were duly elected. On a reference apparently made under Clause 12.28 of the Statutes of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vidyalaya, to which the college is affiliated, the Vice Chancellor passed an order recognising the rival committees of management. There was another dispute in relation to the suspension of the Principal. The Vice Chancellor has held that the order of the suspension was bad as the quorum was not complete in the meeting. All these disputes were decided by a common order of the Vice Chancellor dated 24 June, 1987, annexure 1' to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 24 June, 1987, the petitioner filed a reference before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State University Act-1973 and prayed for the stay of the operation of the order of the Vice Chancellor. The application for stay was rejected by the Chancellor and the order was communicated to the petitioner by the Secretary to the Chancellor vide letter dated 31 July, 1987, annexure 2' to the writ petition The order states as follows:-- In the matter of Managing Committee of Sri Sanathan Dharam Siksha Samiti, Gorakhpur, and to say that as there is no provision under the U.P. State Universities Act to stay the operation of any order of the University, your request for stay cannot be acceded to. Therefore the same has been rejected by the Chancellor. 3. The reason disclosed for rejecting the stay application was that so far as the dispute regarding the election is concerned there is no power to the Chancellor to stay the operation of the order of the Vice Chancellor. 4. The relevant provisions of Section 68 of the State Universities Act runs as follows:-- Provided further that the Chancellor...... (a) act su moto or...... 4. The relevant provisions of Section 68 of the State Universities Act runs as follows:-- Provided further that the Chancellor...... (a) act su moto or...... (b) Where the matter referred relates to a dispute about the election, and the eligibility of the person so elected is in doubt pass such orders of stay as he thinks just and expedient. 5. Section 68 of the Act confers a power on the Chancellor to pass an order of stay, if there is any dispute about the eligibility of the person elected. The order of the Chancellor, is therefore manifestly erroneous and the matter should be reconsidered in the light of the law as laid down by the Act. 6. The other aspect of the matter is with regard to the suspension of the Principal and the Vice-Chancellor has apparently acted under the provisions of Statutes 12.28 of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, Varanasi. The Statutes 12.28 runs as follows:-- 12-28. Wherever there is a dispute regarding the management of an affiliated college, person found by the Vice-Chancellor to be in actual possession and control of the college properties, may for the 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-Chancel for shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the actual administration, the receipt of income from the property of the institution and to other relevant circumstances which might have bearing on the question to be determined. 7. Apparently the parties and the Vice-Chancellor have not noticed that the Statute 12.28 has been amended by the Government Gazette notification No. 5385 15-10-85 (385)-82 dated 31 October, 1985. The amendment provides that statute 12.28 should be so read that whenever the word 'the Vice Chancellor' has been used the word Regional Deputy Director of Eduction should be read. This aspect of the matter should also be borne in mind by the Chancellor while deciding the representation of the petitioners. 8. The amendment provides that statute 12.28 should be so read that whenever the word 'the Vice Chancellor' has been used the word Regional Deputy Director of Eduction should be read. This aspect of the matter should also be borne in mind by the Chancellor while deciding the representation of the petitioners. 8. So far as the power for stay of the order of the Vice-Chancellor is concerned, the Chancellor has not made any order. It appears that in the absence of an express provision in the section authorising the Chancellor to make any interim order in a matter other than those covered by the second proviso to clause (b) of Section 68, the Chancellor was of the view that he can make no interim order. The powers conferred under Section 68 on the Chancellor to decide the disputes covered by Section 68 necessarily includes in it the power to make incidental interim orders in order to make an effective final order covered by Section 68. In this view of the matter, the Chancellor is empowered to make an interim order on the representation of the petitioner for stay. 9. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Chancellor and direct the Chancellor to reconsider the petitioner's application praying for an interim order in the light of the law as explained above. We wish to make it clear that we are expressing no opinion as to whether the order of stay should or should not be made. 10. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.