JUDGMENT S.C. Verma 1. Both these petitions have been filed by the Committee of Management of Santosh Kumar Memorial Inter College, Gangola, Dataganj. Budaun through its Manager challenging the order of the State Government passed under section 16-D (4) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act hereinafter referred to as the Act, appointing the Principal, Government Inter College, Budaun as the Authorised Controller. 2. Before I consider the contentions raised by the petitioner on the merits of the case, few facts may be stated. The impugned order dated 19_7_1986 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 11217 of 1986 and an interim order dated 31st July 1986 was passed which is quoted below : "It has been pointed out on behalf of the opposite-party No. 2 that the authorised controller in pursuance of order dated July 19, 1986 has taken over. We have considered the matter and since prima facie we are of the opinion that the order passed does not satisfy the requirements of law and it is based without consideration of any material or discussion nor recording of any findings, we are of the opinion that its operation should remain stayed. We further direct the opposite party No. 2 not to interfere in the petitioners' managing the affairs of the: College from the date of the copy is presented before him till further orders of the Court" On the basis of the aforesaid order, the petitioners continued to manage the affairs of the Institution. The amended Scheme of Administration for the Institution was approved by the Director of Education on 21-1-1985. The duly recognised elections of the Committee of Management were held in the year 1982 under (the old Scheme of Administration. According to the petitioners, the elections of the Committee of Management were again held on 20-6-1985. The counsel for the petitioners, under some misapprehension, made a statement that the writ petition has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. The petition was dismissed by an order dated 4-12-1991 as having become infructuous and the interim order was also discharged. The Additional Director of Education, by order dated 20-1-1992, communicated to the Deputy Director of Education, Bareilly that the petition has been dismissed and the stay order has been vacated and, as such, necessary action be taken in accordance with law. The Additional Director of Education, by order dated 20-1-1992, communicated to the Deputy Director of Education, Bareilly that the petition has been dismissed and the stay order has been vacated and, as such, necessary action be taken in accordance with law. The Deputy Director of Education passed an order dated 5-3-1991 directing the Authorised Controller to assume charge, The Authorised Controller again resumed charge. The action of the respondents was challenged in Writ Petition No. 9991 of 1992. The petitioners also challenged the initial order dated 19-7-1986 passed under section 16-D (4) of the Act. 3. The petitioner, realising the mistake, moved an application to set aside the order dated 4-12-1991 dismissing the petition. The order dated 4-12-1991 was recalled but as the Authorised Controller had already taken charge, the interim order dated 31-7-1986 could not be revived. The petitioner in these circumstances, prayed that they may be allowed to take charge of the Management of the Institution. As the affidavits have been exchanged in both the writ petitions, it would be appropriate that both the petitions be disposed of finally. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no, 2, the Authorised controller, raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the amended Scheme of Administration wherein it has been provided that the term of Committee of Management would be three years and after the expiry of the aforesaid period, in case elections have not been held within one month, the District Inspector of Schools would be entitled to hold the elections and the Committee of Management and the officebearers erased to function. It has been alleged that the last elections of the Committee of Management were held in 1982 and in any view of the matter as the elections were not held in accordance with the amended Scheme of Administration, fresh elections may be held by the District Inspector of Schools. The learned counsel for tine petitioner objected to this statement and placed before me the material and averments made in the writ petition which established that the new elections of the Committee of Management were held on 15-8-1991 and the District Inspector of Schools had also recognised the aforesaid elections by order dated 1-9-1991 filed as ANNEXURE 10' to the petition of 1992. It has been alleged that in pursuance of the interim order dated 31-7-1986 the petitioners Committee of Management continued to function and elections of the Committee of Management were held periodically which were duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools. In the last elections held on 15-8-1991, the District Inspector of Schools has attested the signatures of Sri Munendra Pal Singh as the Manager. Thus so long as the order dated 1-9-1991 recognising the newly elected Committee of Management survives, there would be no need to hold fresh elections as the term of the last elected Committee of Management had not expired. Neither the District Inspector of Schools has reviewed the order dated 1-9-1991 nor there is any dispute with respect to the Management of the Institution, which could have been referred for adjudication under section 16-A (7) of the Act. In these circumstances, in my opinion, either the Authorised Controller would function in case the order dated 19-7-1986 and the order dated 5-3-1992 are upheld or the duly recognised Committee of Management would function. 5. Now coming to the merits of the case, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner assailing the impugned order on merits, it has been alleged that the charges on the basis of which the Impugned action has been taken and the charges which have been found to be established are not the charges which are teased on the grounds enumerated under section 16-D (3) of the Act on the basis of which action under section 16-D (4) could may be taken. 6. To examine this contention, we have to carefully see the charges levelled against the petitioner and the grounds enumerated in section 16-D (3) of the Act. Section 16 D (3) is quoted below : "(3). 6. To examine this contention, we have to carefully see the charges levelled against the petitioner and the grounds enumerated in section 16-D (3) of the Act. Section 16 D (3) is quoted below : "(3). If on the receipt of information or otherwise, the Director is satisfied that :- (i) the Committee of Management of an institution has failed to comply with the judgment of any court or any direction made under this Act or any other law for the time being in force; or (ii) the Committee has failed to appoint teaching staff possessing such qualifications as are necessary for the purpose of ensuring the maintenance of academic standard in the institution or has appointed or retained in service any teaching or non-teaching staff in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the Regulations; or (iii) any dispute with respect to the right claimed by different persons to be lawful office-bearers of the Committee of Management has affected the smooth and orderly administration of the Institution concerned; or (iv) the Committee has persistently failed to provide the institution with such adequate and proper accommodation, library, furniture, stationery, laboratory equipment or other facilities as are necessary for the efficient administration of such institution; or (v) the Committee has substatially Averted, misapplied or misappropriated the property of the institution to its detriment or has transferred any property in contravention of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974 (U. P. Act No. 3 of 1975); or (vi) the draft of the Scheme of Administration has not been submitted within the time allowed therefor under section-16-B, or that the Management of the institution is being conducted otherwise than in accordance with the Scheme of Administration or the affairs of the institution are being otherwise mismanaged; (vii) the Scheme of Administration in relation to an institution approved before the commencement of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1980, is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the management of the institution has failed to alter or modify it within a reasonable time despite notice under section 16 CCC; he may refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition of such institution, or issue notice to the Committee of Management to show cause within thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice why an order under sub-section (4) should not be made." The charges which have been found to be established and on the basis of which the State Government, after being satisfied, had taken the impugned action ere as follows : (J) The Committee of Management of the Institution was not constituted in accordance with the amended Scheme of Administration. (2) Illegal fee was realised from the students and the Income of the Institution has been misutilised, and (3) At the time of inspection by the Audit Unit, records were not shown, and (4) The manager did not comply with the directions and the Rules and acted in an irresponsible manner. 7. Ground No. (ill) of section 16-D (3) relates to the dispute with respect to the right claimed by different persons which has affected the smooth and orderly administration of the Institution. The charge, on the other hand, is that the elections of the Committee of Management were not held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration This charge can not be treated to be covered under the aforesaid ground of section 16-D (3). 8. The second charge is with regard to the illegal fee realised from the students and the misutilisation of the income of the Institution Ground No. (v) of section 16-D (3) mentions about the irregularity of substantially diverting, misapplying or mis-appropriating the property of the institution to its detriment or transfer of the property In contravention of the provisions of the U. P. Act 3 of 1975 which means property in relation to an Institution includes all immoveable properties belonging to or endowed wholly or purely for the benefit of the Institution including lands, buildings and all other rights as may be in the ownership, possession, power or control of the Management. The charge in the present case is illegal realisation of fee from the students and the other charge is the misapplication of the income of the Institution. The income of the Institution under the charge would be an income from the immoveable property belonging to the Institution. Neither the charge relates to the income or the misapplication of the income from the immoveable property nor the finding relates to the same. 9. The third charge which has been established is with regard to the non-production of records before the Audit Inspection Unit. This charge is not covered under any of the grounds enumerated under section 16-D (3). Charge No. 4 relating to the non-compliance of the directions of the Department and the actions of the Manager being of irresponsible manner, are also not covered by any of the grounds mentioned in section 16-D (3) of the Act. This charge is not covered under any of the grounds enumerated under section 16-D (3). Charge No. 4 relating to the non-compliance of the directions of the Department and the actions of the Manager being of irresponsible manner, are also not covered by any of the grounds mentioned in section 16-D (3) of the Act. I have also carefully considered the charges on the basis of which the explanation of the petitioner was called for and which were directed to be rectified. Some of the charges have not been established on the basis of which the ultimate action has been taken Charge No. 1 is with regard to the constitution of the Committee of Management which is alleged to be not in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. This charge is not covered by Ground No. (iii) of section 16-D (3). Charge No. 2 Is with regard to the annual general meeting and circulation of agenda etc. This charge is not covered by any of the grounds under section 16 D (3). The third charge is that no effort has been made to get the income and expenditure of the land audited and the records were not shown and income worth lacs were not deposited in the correct accounts and the same has been misutilised. Even this charge is not covered by Ground No. (v) The non-production of records before the Audit Inspection Unit and income worth lacs not being deposited in correct account firstly can not be treated to be income from the immoveable property of the Institution and non- deposit in the correct account would not amount to diversion, misapplication or misappropriation of the funds. Charge No. 4 relates to the realisation of Illegal fee. This is also not covered by any of the grounds for the impugned action the fifth charge relates to income from the Tube-well and mango and guava groves It has been staled that no record of income has been maintained and the income has been misappropriated. This charge has not been established as such. On the other hand, a general charge of income of the Institution being misapplied was established. The sixth charge is about the letting of the Tube-well on a very low rent. This charge has not been established as such. On the other hand, a general charge of income of the Institution being misapplied was established. The sixth charge is about the letting of the Tube-well on a very low rent. This charge has not been found to be established The seventh charge is with regard to the non- production of records of the Institution before the Audit Inspection Unit and is also not covered by any of the grounds Thus the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in stating that the charges which have been found to be established against the petitioner and which are stated in the impugned order are not covered under any of the grounds enumerated under section 16-D (3) for taking the impugned action. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that while recording the findings, only conclusion have been stated and no reasons have been mentioned This indicates that the State Government has not applied its mind on the reply submitted by the petitioner and the material on record. This contention also appears to be correct. The impugned order itself does not state any reason or discussion of any evidence on record to indicate that the authority has applied his mind to their arriving at the satisfaction that the charges are established. The findings are only in the shape of conclusions The mere mention in the order that show cause notices of the Director, the reply of the Institution after removing the defects and the report of the authorities have been considered is not sufficient to establish that the reply of the Institution was not found satisfactory and what is the adverse material on the basts of which the charge is ultimately established. It is correct that these authorities are not supposed to write a detailed judicial order but since they are taking action by depriving the petitioner of their legal rights to manage the Institution, it is expected that they would Indicate some reasons for their Satisfaction to establish that the findings are not arbitrary and they have been made after objective consideration of the relevant material on record. The Impugned order, in my opinion is certainly lacking in this respect specially when the provisions of section 16-D. (4) specifically requires that the authority would record reasons in the order to indicate their satisfaction on the charges or the irregularities found against the Institution In a recent decision S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 , it has been observed by the Honourable Supreme Court as under : "Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of 'arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge." "Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework where under jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority." 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I am satisfied that the impugned orders suffer from manifest error of law and are liable to be set aside. The order dated 19-7-1986 passed by the State Government under section 16-D (1) of the Act as also the order dated 5-3-1992 under which the Authorised Controller has resumed charge are set aside. The Authorised Controller is directed to handover the charge forthwith to the duly elected Committee of Management of the Institution of which Sri Munendra Pal Singh is the Manager.