JUDGMENT M.K. Mukherjee, C.J. - On receipt of some complaint of mismanagement against the Appellant, the Vice-Chancellor of Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, constituted a Committee to inquire into the same. Aggrieved thereby it filed a writ petition before a learned Judge of this Court contending that the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (Act for short) did not empower the Vice-Chancellor to order such an inquiry and that power to do so vested only with the State Government u/s 40 of the Act. The learned Judge rejected the writ petition firstly on the ground that even though the Appellant had made a representation before the Vice-Chancellor against holding of the enquiry it did not raise any objection as to the powers of the Vice-Chancellor to direct such an enquiry. The learned Judge further held that the Vice-Chancellor had the requisite powers u/s 13(1)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the rejection of its writ petition, the Appellant has filed this special appeal. 2. We have heard Sri A.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri R.R. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 3. The grounds urged by the Appellant before the learned Judge were reiterated before us and reliance was placed upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management of R.K. College v. V.C. Meerut University 1987 UP LB EC 172, to contend that the powers of the Vice-Chancellor u/s 13(1) and (6) of the Act were to meet only emergent situations and as such the powers u/s 13(1) could not be invoked in the instant case. For proper appreciation of the above contention made in the light of the Full Bench judgment referred to above, it would be profitable at this stage to extract section 13(1) and (6) of the Act : 13. For proper appreciation of the above contention made in the light of the Full Bench judgment referred to above, it would be profitable at this stage to extract section 13(1) and (6) of the Act : 13. Powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor -- (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University and shall -- (a) exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University including the constituent colleges and the Institutes maintained by the University and its affiliated and associated colleges : (b) give effect to the decisions of the authorities of the University : (c) in the absence of the Chancellor, preside at meetings of the Court and at any convocation of the University : (d) be responsible for the maintenance of discipline in the University : (e) be responsible for holding and conducting the University examinations properly and at due times and for ensuring that the results of such examinations are published expeditiously and that academic session of the University starts and ends on proper dates. ... ... ... (6) Where any matter is of urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same could not be immediately dealt with by any officer or the authority or other body of the University empowered by or under this Act to deal with it, the Vice-Chancellor may take such action as he may deem fit and shall forthwith report the action taken by him to the Chancellor and also to the officer, authority, or other body who or which in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter . 4. When the different clauses of sub-section (1) of section 13 are read is juxtaposition with those of sub-section (6) it becomes patently clear that while the former speaks of the general powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor to run the day to day administration of the University and its affiliated colleges, the latter provides him with powers to meet an emergent situation. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the Full Bench has gone to the extent of saying that section 13(1) refers only to an emergent situation. In fact, there is no reference to the contents of section 13(1) in the judgment in question. 5. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the Full Bench has gone to the extent of saying that section 13(1) refers only to an emergent situation. In fact, there is no reference to the contents of section 13(1) in the judgment in question. 5. In view of section 13(1)(a) of the Act the Vice-Chancellor is required to exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of, inter alia, Colleges affiliated to the University and, needless to say, power of supervision and control necessarily includes the power to direct enquires into complaints made against the management of such Colleges. Undoubtedly u/s 40 of the Act the State Government has also powers to direct inspection of an affiliated or associated College but that does not debar the Vice-Chancellor from exercising his powers expressly given u/s 13(1)(a). No exception can, therefore, be taken to the impugned action of the Vice-Chancellor. 6. As the order of the learned Judge has get to be affirmed on this score alone, we need not decide upon the question whether the other ground which weighed with the learned Judge in rejecting the writ petition is sustainable or not. 7. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.