JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, CJ. - This special appeal is preferred against an order of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition at the stage of admission. The writ petition was directed against an order dated 26/27th July 1990 (Annexure 11) passed by the State Government extending term, of the Authorised Controller for a period of one year. The order impugned in the writ petition reads as follows : "Ref. Your L/No. 99-100/89 dated 11 June/90 reg. appointment of authorised controller in Janta Degree College. Ranipur Mau Government have extended term of authorised controller for a further period of one year in continuations of Government order No. 2277/XV-11-89-3(22) 86 dated 28 July, 1989. Formal order follows 2. Earlier proceeding were taken under Sections 57 and 58 of the U.P. State Universities Act,1973. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why an Authorised Controller be not appointed to rectify the irregularities mentioned in the said notice. The petitioner showed cause, after considering which B.A. order dated 28th July, 1989 an Authorised Controller was appointed for a period of one year. It is that appointment which has been now extended for one more year under the order impugned in the writ petition. 3. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition was that before extending the term of the Authorised Controller, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It was also contended that the order of extension is not a speaking order and on that account also it is violative of principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition observing that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is not sustainable. It was observed that it is open to the petitioner to approach the authorised for withdrawing the order extending the term of the Authorised Controller. 4. In this Special Appeal Dr. R.C. Padia, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the two contentions afore-mentioned. 5. We have seen Sections 57 and 58 of the Act. While the act provides for an opportunity of hearing at the stage of initial appointment of Authorised Controller, no such opportunity is provided in the matter of extension. The Act provides that the initial appointment can be for a period not exceeding two years which can be extended to a total period of five years. While the act provides for an opportunity of hearing at the stage of initial appointment of Authorised Controller, no such opportunity is provided in the matter of extension. The Act provides that the initial appointment can be for a period not exceeding two years which can be extended to a total period of five years. The contention of Dr. Padia that since the Act is silent in the matter of extension, principles of natural justice must be imported to ensure justice, cannot be accepted in this situation. The very fact that no opportunity of hearing is provided at the stage of extension means that such Opportunity is excluded by necessary implication. Initial appointment and extension do not stand on the some footing. At the same time we must say that extension of term of an Authorised Controller is not and should not be treated as a mechanical act or as a mere formality. The Government Has to satisfy that such extension is called for in the circumstances of the case. This is what the first previse to Section 50 provides. It says if the State Government is of the opinion that it is expedient so to do in order to continue to secure the proper Management of the college and its properly, it may. from time to time, extend the operation of the order for such period not exceeding one year at a time. Power of extension has to be exercised only on being so satisfied. It appears to be subjective in nature. of course, even the subjective satisfaction has to be exercised fairly and having regard to the relevant material, vide Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 995. We cannot also agree that the extension order must be a speaking order. This is again a principle of natural justice, which we cannot import at the stage of extension. It is one thing to say that the Government must be satisfied bonafide about the expediency of continuing the appointment and yet another matter to say that the order should be a speaking order. Both are not the same. 6. This is again a principle of natural justice, which we cannot import at the stage of extension. It is one thing to say that the Government must be satisfied bonafide about the expediency of continuing the appointment and yet another matter to say that the order should be a speaking order. Both are not the same. 6. Having regard to the facts of the case and the scheme of the enactment, the proper direction to make would be to give liberty to the appellant to make a representation to the Government of U.P. explaining why the term of Authorised Controller be not extended or continued. It is open to the appellant to say in such a representation that the irregularities for which the initial appointment was made has since been rectified or that they no longer exist. If any such representation is made, the State Government shall consider the same according to law and in the light of the relevant facts and dispose of the same, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order along with the aforesaid representation. The Government's order shall be a speaking order. 7. In this view of matter it is not necessary to go into or express any opinion on the preliminary objection raised by the standing counsel for the State Government that this special appeal is not maintainable by virtue of the provisions contained in the U.P. High Court (Abolition etc.) Act, 1962. 8. The Special Appeal is dismissed of accordingly.