JUDGMENT : R.A. SHARMA, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10-12-1991 passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of its power u/s 16-D(4) of the Intermediate Education Act (here-in-after referred to as the Act), appointing an authorised controller for H.A.V. Intermediate College, Deoband, Saharanpur (here-in-after referred to as the college), Petitioners, namely. Committee of Management and the manager of the college have filed this writ petition challenging the above order. The sole ground raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in support of the writ petition is that the impugned order does not contain any reason learned Counsel for the Respondents has however, disputed the above submission. 2. Section 16-D of the Act empowers the Director of Education to direct management of educational institution to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. Sub-section (3) of the said section further lays down that if Director, on the receipt of information or otherwise, is satisfied that the management of the institution has failed to comply with any direction made under this Act or under any other law or has failed to comply with the judgment of any Court or is guilty of act or omission mentioned in clauses (ii) to (vi) of the said sub-section, he may refer the case to the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh for withdrawal of recognition of such institution or issue notice to the Committee of Management to show cause why an order under sub-section (4) should not be made. Sub-section (4) of the same Section lays down that if the Committee of Management of an institution fails to show cause under sub-section (3) or where Director is, after considering the cause shown by the Committee of Management, satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (3) exists, he may, recommend to the State Government to appoint an authorised controller for that institution, and thereupon, "the State Government may, by order, for reasons to be recorded, authorise any person (here-in-after referred to as the authorised controller) to take over, for such period not exceeding two years, as may be specified, the management of such institution and its properties". (Emphasis supplied) 3. (Emphasis supplied) 3. In the instant case the Director of Education issued an order under sub-section (2) of Section 16-D of the Act to the manager of the college requiring him to remove the defects pointed out in that order. Petitioners are said to have submitted the explanation to the Director of Education. The Director, thereafter issued notice under sub-section (3) of Section 16-D. Petitioners submitted their reply to the above notice and it appears that the District Inspector of Schools also submitted a report in favour of the Petitioners. The Government however, as mentioned above, appointed authorised controller under sub-section (4). 4. The impugned order of the Government, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure VI to the writ petition, refers to Director's notices u/s 16-D(2) and thereafter it mentions the notice issued by the Director under sub-section (3). After mentioning the above notices, the order of the Director recommending to the State Government for appointment of authorised controller for the college has been referred to and thereafter the grounds on the basis of which the Director has made recommendations have been reproduced to in the said order. Thereafter, it has been stated that in view of the recommendations of the Director and the facts mentioned above the Government is satisfied that grounds mentioned in clauses (v) & (vi) of subsection (3) of Section 16-D exist and it is proper to appoint authorised controller under sub-section (4). 5. From the perusal of the order of the Government, it is apparent that the Government has merely recorded its conclusion and has failed to record any reason in support of its order. Provisions of sub-section (4), which requires the Government to pass an order "for the reasons to be recorded." are mandatory. Whenever the power under a statute is required to be exercised for the reasons to be recorded, said provisions are mandatory and failure to record reasons in the order vitiates the acts of the Government. When the statute requires reasons to be recorded, recording of conclusion does not amount to compliance of the statute. Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Monghyr v. Keshav Prasad Goenka AIR 1962 SC 1994 has laid down the difference between the conclusion and the reason as follows : These are two matters, which though somewhat inter-related are nevertheless distinct and separate. Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Monghyr v. Keshav Prasad Goenka AIR 1962 SC 1994 has laid down the difference between the conclusion and the reason as follows : These are two matters, which though somewhat inter-related are nevertheless distinct and separate. One is the conclusion or finding of the Collector that the State of circumstances set out in Section 5-A(1) exists, and the other the reasons why and the grounds upon which the Collector reaches that conclusion. It is further laid down by the Supreme Court that factual existence of reasons for the Conclusion on the record would not result in compliance with the statutory requirements unless reasons are contained in the order. Relevant passage from the above judgment is reproduced below : Similarly the factual existence of reasons for the Collector's conclusion would not avail where he does not comply with the statutory requirement of stating them in his order. The reports of the Estimating Officer or of the Overseer which were relied on in this context would only indicate that those officers considered that action u/s 5-A was called for. Several of the reports referred to in this connection, extract the material words of Section 5-A(1) and conclude with a recommendation to the Sub-Divisional Officer who was vested with the powers of a Collector that it was a fit case for action being taken u/s 5-A. What the section requires is that on the basis of materials which exist -- this might include the reports of officers as well as information gathered by the Collector himself by personal inspection or after enquiry -- he should reach the conclusion that irrigation works for the purposes set out in Section 5-A should be immediately taken on hand and completed and that there is such an emergency in having the work completed which will not brook that amount of delay which the notice and proceedings under Sections 3 to 5 would entail. It is not, therefore, the presence of the material that is of sole relevance or the only criterion but the Collector's opinion as to the urgency coupled with his recording his reasons why he considers that the procedure under Sections 3 to 5 should not be gone through. It is not, therefore, the presence of the material that is of sole relevance or the only criterion but the Collector's opinion as to the urgency coupled with his recording his reasons why he considers that the procedure under Sections 3 to 5 should not be gone through. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission that the reports of the Overseers or the Estimating Officers would obviate the infirmity arising from the failure of the Collector to record his reasons as required by Section 5-A(1). In this connection reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and Others, AIR 1974 SC 87 , wherein it was laid down that : Reasons are the links between the material on which certain conclusion are based and the actual conclusion. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusion reached. 6. As mentioned here in before the impugned order refers to the notices issued under sub-sections (2) and (3) and thereafter recites the grounds on the basis of which the Director has made recommendations to the Government for appointment of authorised controller. No other facts have been mentioned in the order of the Government. Without recording any reason as to why it is expedient to appoint authorised controller under sub-section (4), the Government has jumped to the conclusion that such an appointment would be proper and necessary. Why it is necessary and proper have not been explained in the order. Reproduction of the report of the Director in the impugned order or the existence of the reasons for a conclusion on the record do not amount to the compliance of the Statute which requires recording of the reasons in the order itself. The order merely records conclusion and not having recorded any reasons, it is in violation of sub-section (4) and such an order cannot be sustained. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with cost and the Government order dated 10-12-1991 is quashed. The Government is directed to decide afresh the question of appointment of authorised controller under sub-section (4) of section 16-D of the Act for the college in accordance with law. While so doing the Government will record its reasons. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with cost and the Government order dated 10-12-1991 is quashed. The Government is directed to decide afresh the question of appointment of authorised controller under sub-section (4) of section 16-D of the Act for the college in accordance with law. While so doing the Government will record its reasons. The decision of the Government will be given within two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Order so passed shall be communicated to the parties within a week thereafter.