G. B. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE Governing Body of Devi Kandal Nityananda College, Erancha, is the petitioner and has approached this Court for issue of a mandamus to the opposite parties to take a final decision in the matter of approval of the Governing Body. ( 2 ) THE Governing Body of the College was approved by Opposite Party No. 2 on 6-12-1985 under R. 4 (3) of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Colleges) (Amendment) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "rules") for a period of three years. The said order of approval has been annexed as Annexure-1. Undisputedly the institution is an aided educational institution within the meaning of S. 3 (b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). The procedure for approval of the Governing Body of a College is prescribed under R. 4 of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Colleges) Rules, 1979. Under R. 4 (1), the Director is required to call upon the President of the Governing Body before ninety days of the expiry of the term of the Governing Body to send a panel of names for approval. Under R. 4 (2), the President has a right to furnish the proposal before thirty days of the expiry of the term for reconstitution. In accordance with the provisions contained in R. 4 (2), the President of the approved Governing Body under Annexure-1 submitted the proposal for reconstitution for the next term on 28-8-1988 appending the resolution dated 21-8-1988. The letter of the President has been annexed as Annexure-2 and the resolution of the Governing Body is Annexure-3. Under R. 4 (3) of the Rules, the Director has to either accord approval or to substitute any other member other than the ex-officio member after recording reasons for doing so, but not with standing the submission of proposal under Annexure-2 by the President on 28-81988, Opposite Party No. 2 not having taken any action thereon, the Governing Body has approached this Court for issue of a mandamus to Opposite Party No. 2. In the meantime one of the proposed members under Annexure-3, Sri Dhuleswar Behera, who had been included in the Governing Body having declined to be in the Governing Body, by a fresh resolution, the Governing Body substituted the name of one Krushna Chandra Behera in place of said Dhuleswar Behera and the same was also communicated to the Director of Higher Education, Orissa (Opposite Party No. 2) by letter dated 5-9-1988 (Annexure-4 ). Mr. Rath, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that R. 4 (3) enjoins upon the Director of Higher Education a duty to accord his approval to the proposal or to substitute any of the nominated members of the Governing Body after recording reason for doing so and inaction on the part of Opposite Party No. 2 amounts to non-exercise of statutory duty cast upon Opposite Party No. 2 under sub-rule (3) of R. 4, and, therefore, he must be commanded by a writ of mandamus to perform his duty. Mr. Rath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, also urges relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Srinath Nayak v. Circle Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal circle, (1989) 67 Cut LT 33, that in view of the failure of Opposite Party No. 2 to substitute any of the nominated members, the proposal sent by the Governing Body under Annexure-2 must be deemed to have been approved by Opposite Party No. 2. ( 3 ) WHEN this writ application was listed for admission on 13-2-1989, the learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to take instruction in the matter. Thereafter when the matter was again listed on 27-2-1989, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that no instruction had been received and accordingly notice of admission and hearing was issued and the State Counsel undertook to file counter-affidavit, if any, within three weeks from that date. When the case was taken up for hearing on 30th of March, 1989, it transpired that no counter-affidavit had been filed. In this view of the matter, the assertions of fact made in the writ application must be deemed to have not been controverted by the opposite parties. ( 4 ) THE short question, therefore is whether Opposite Party No. 2 would be called upon by mandamus to perform the duty under sub-rule (3) of R. 4 of the Rules. In this view of the matter, the assertions of fact made in the writ application must be deemed to have not been controverted by the opposite parties. ( 4 ) THE short question, therefore is whether Opposite Party No. 2 would be called upon by mandamus to perform the duty under sub-rule (3) of R. 4 of the Rules. Before that it would be appropriate to consider the second submission of Mr. Rath, the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to Mr. Rath, in Srinath Nayak's case, referred to supra, a Bench of the Court considering R. 4 (2) of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980, and examining the scheme of the Rules came to hold that on the failure of the appropriate authority to return the proposal of the Secretary of the Managing Committee within the prescribed time, it must be deemed that the said authority had no objection to the proposal which must be deemed to have been approved automatically in the eye of law and the said provision under the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980, being in pari materia with R. 4 (3) of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Colleges) Rules, 1979 the decision must apply. In our considered opinion, the contention is devoid of any substance. Rule 4 (2) of the Management of Private Schools Rules prescribes a period, namely thirty days from the date of receipt of the proposal under sub-rule (1) within which the Inspector or the District Inspector, as the case may be, either shall accord his approval thereto or return the same to the Secretary of the Managing Committee for substitution of any nominated member after recording the reasons therefor. In view of the aforesaid prescription of time within which the appropriate authority is required to approve or return, their Lordships in Srinath Nayak's case came to hold that on the failure on the part of the authority to return the proposal within the prescribed time would amount to a conclusion that he had no objection to the nomination. In view of the aforesaid prescription of time within which the appropriate authority is required to approve or return, their Lordships in Srinath Nayak's case came to hold that on the failure on the part of the authority to return the proposal within the prescribed time would amount to a conclusion that he had no objection to the nomination. But in R. 4 (3) of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Colleges) Rules, 1979, with which we are concerned in the present case, there is no such prescribed period within which the Director is required to consider and pass a final order either according approval or substituting any of the nominated members, after recording reasons for doing so. Then again, under the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980, the Inspector or the District Inspector could only return the proposal to the Managing Committee for substitution of any nominated member. But under the Rules of 1979, the Director is empowered to substitute any of the nominated members. A reading of the scheme of the 1979 Rules would indicate that it was not the same as that of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980, and, therefore, the aforesaid decision relied upon by Mr. Rath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the provision of R. 4 (3) of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Colleges) Rules, 1979 is under consideration. Rule 4 of the said 1979 Rules requires the President of the Governing Body to furnish the proposal for constitution at least thirty days before prior to the date of expiry of the term. That proposal has to be considered under sub-rule (3) of R. 4 by the Director, who has the power either to accord his proposal or to substitute any of the members other than ex officio ones after recording the reasons for doing so. The said sub-rule (3) is not susceptible of a construction of any deemed approval and the language of sub-rule (3) being plain and unambiguous, the Court is not entitled to look to any other provisions contained in any other statutes to give a meaning other than the plain meaning of sub-rule (3) of R. 4. The said sub-rule (3) is not susceptible of a construction of any deemed approval and the language of sub-rule (3) being plain and unambiguous, the Court is not entitled to look to any other provisions contained in any other statutes to give a meaning other than the plain meaning of sub-rule (3) of R. 4. In our view, therefore, there is no deemed approval under sub-rule (3) of R. 4, though the Director being required under the statute to exercise his power, must do so within a reasonable time and cannot be permitted to sit over the matter for indefinite period. Accordingly, the second contention of Mr. Rath is devoid of any substance and is accordingly rejected. ( 5 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned, there cannot be any dispute that the Director of Higher Education is required to perform his duty under sub-rule (3) of R. 4 and he has to either accord his approval or substitute any of the nominated members by giving reasons therefor. The duty that is cast upon the Director under R. 4 (3) is a statutory duty, the rule in question having been framed under S. 27 (3) of the Orissa Education Act. The petitioner being the Governing Body of a College has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by Opposite Party No. 2 and performance of such duty can be enforced by a writ of mandamus. Since Opposite Party No. 2 has not taken any action pursuant to the powers, vested in him under sub-rule (3) of R. 4 and vesting of power upon an authority under any statute or statutory rule casts upon the said authority a duty of that power being exercised, we would call upon Opposite Party No. 2 to perform his duty enjoined upon him under sub-rule (3) of R. 4 in respect of the proposal of the Governing Body submitted to him under Annexure-2 along with the resolution under Annexure-3. ( 6 ) IN the net result, therefore, this writ application is allowed and a writ of mandamus be issued to Opposite Party No. 2 to pass final orders under R. 4 (3) of the Rules of 1979 in respect of the proposal submitted by the President of the Governing Body under Anneuxre-2 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of our order. The petitioner is called upon to deposit necessary requisites for issue of writ within a week from today failing which the writ application shall stand dismissed without any further reference to the Bench. We make no order as to costs. ( 7 ) DAS, J. :- I agree. Petition allowed. .