JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioners claiming to be validly elected Committee of Management of Ambika Pratap Narain Degree College, Basti are challenging the validity of an order passed by the Vice Chancellor on 4-3-86 on a variety of grounds. It is contended that the petitioners were duly constituted as the Committee of Management in pursuance of certain elections held on 2-6-1985 for a term of five years. However, the,. Vice-Chancellor has by the impugned order dated 4-3-86 refused to recognise they Committee represented by the petitioners of which Sri Ambika Pratap Narain is thee Manager/Secretary. It is contended that the petitioners were duly elected as the Committee of Management of the said, '' Institution which is affiliated to Gorakhpur University and the Vice-Chancellor has' illegally and without any authority declined to recognise the petitioners' Committee. 2. We do not consider it necessary to enter into the question whether the election claimed by the petitioners were held in accordance with the bye-laws of the institution or whether on merits the petitioners had a right to be recognised as the duly constituted Committee of Management of Ambika Pratap Narain Degree College as, in our opinion the impugned order can be challenged by the petitioners by way of representation before] the Chancellor under S. 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. 3. For the petitioners, however, it is urged that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Vice-Chancellor'' has been vested with an power to determine any dispute with regard to the management of the institution, inasmuch as the Ambika Pratap Narain Degree College is an institution which was affiliated to the Gorakhpur University prior to the coming into force by the First Statutes framed by the State Government under S. 50(1) of the U.P. State: Universities Act. Consequently, the provisions of statute 13.05 of the first statute applicable to Colleges affiliated after coming into force of those statutes conferring power on the Vice-Chancellor to determine disputes as to whether any person has been duly chosen or entitled to be member or office-bearer of the management or whether the management is' legally constituted were not attracted to the present case. In support, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision reported in' 1983 UPLBEC 101. In support, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision reported in' 1983 UPLBEC 101. It was urged that inasmuch as the order is wholly without jurisdiction the remedy by way of a representation before the Chancellor could not stand in the way of the petitioners approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. We are unable to agree. The Vice- Chancellor, derives his power to determine dispute pertaining to the Constitution of the Committee of Management of the institution affiliated to State Universities primarily under S. 2(13) of the State Universities Act. The next provision under which the Vice- Chancellor gets authority to determine such a dispute is Cl. (f) of statute 13.05 which reads as follows : "If any question arises whether any person has been duly chosen as, or is entitled to be a member of office-bearer of the Management or whether the Management is legally constituted, the decision of the Vice- Chancellor shall be final. 5. In the case of Ashwani Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., reported in 1983 UPLBEC 101, however, a Bench of this Court analysing statute 13.05 and statute 13.21 held that statute 13.05 has no application to a institution which was affiliated to the University prior to the coming into force of the First Statutes. Unless the Vice-Chancellor issues an order under the first proviso to the statute 13.21 directing such affiliated Colleges observe the conditions mentioned therein. 6. This decision does seem to support the petitioners' contention in that admittedly the institution was affiliated to the Gorakhpur University prior to coming into force of the first Statute. However, the Division Bench had reached the above conclusion on the premise that the Vice-Chancellor had not issued any order under the first proviso to 13.21. It was observed that the order contemplated under that proviso had not been brought to the notice of the Bench. In the present case, however, the learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice ,the order issued by the Vice-Chancellor applying the provisions of 13.05 also to all the colleges affiliated to Gorakhpur University prior to coming into force of the first statute. In the present case, however, the learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice ,the order issued by the Vice-Chancellor applying the provisions of 13.05 also to all the colleges affiliated to Gorakhpur University prior to coming into force of the first statute. It appears that somehow the learned counsel appearing before the Bench in the case of Aswani Kumar (supra) could not lay his hands on the order of the Vice-Chancellor as a result of which the Bench proceeded on the assumption that the Vice-Chancellor had.not -issued any such order under the first proviso to statute 13.21. The first proviso of statute 13.21 reads as follows. : "Every affiliated college shall observe the condition set out in statutes 13.04 to 13.07 : Provided that in the case of college affiliated before the commencement of these statutes, the Vice-Chancellor may require the Management of such college to fulfil and observe such of the conditions set out in Statutes 13.04, 13.06 and 13.07 which the Vice-Chancellor considers reasonable." 7. To our mind, the proviso to Statute 13.21 does not seem to support the view that by its term Statute 13.05 is automatically excluded. For the provisions of 13.05 are applicable to all affiliated Colleges, whether affiliated before or after the First Statute upon the plain terms of the main provision of Statute 13.21 quoted above. The first proviso to Statute 13.21 merely lays that upon being so required those affiliated Colleges shall amend their by-laws consistently with 13.04, 13.06 and 13.07. However as in the present case an express order passed by the Vice- Chancellor under the first proviso of 13.21. Statute 13.21 has been brought to our notice it is not necessary to refer the question to a larger Bench. 8. That being so, the Vice-Chancellor was competent both under S. 2(13) as well as statute 13.05 to consider the question whether the petitioners were validly constituted Management of the institution. 9. Even apart from these statutory provisions, under the bye-laws of the Society themselves, the Vice-Chancellor has been vested with the power to decide either himself or to refer to any competent person or authority any dispute touching the affairs of the society arising between the members of the Society subject to restriction imposed of the statutory provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations. 10. Thus the Vice-Chancellor was fully competent to pass the impugned order. 10. Thus the Vice-Chancellor was fully competent to pass the impugned order. If, therefore, the petitioner has any grievance as regards the correctness of the Vice Chancellor's order they can agitate the matter by way of a representation before the Chancellor under S. 8 of the State Universities Act or by way of a civil suit whichever the petitioners are advised to institute. 11. In this view' of the matter, we do not propose to go into the merits of the petitioners contention as regards the validity of the elections on the basis of which they have claimed the right to be recognised as the duly constituted management. 12. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.