R. H. ZAIDI, J. Petitioners challenge the validity of the order dated 1-9-1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur in exercise of his power under Section 60-D of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) authorising respondent No. 4, Mohammad Aslam to operate the accounts of Halim Muslim Degree College, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the College.) 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that, dispute with respect to management of the college is going on for quite some time between two rival groups one led by petitioner No. 2 Dr. M. A. W. Rizvi and other by Shri Fahetim Ahmad, respondent No 3 vide his order dated 8-12-1994 the Vice Chancellor of Kanpur University recognised Shri Faheem Ahmad as a person authorised to operate the accounts of the college. The validity of the order dated 8-12-1994 was challenged by the petitioners before the Chancellor under Section 6s of the Act. Chancellor by his order dated 21-7-1995 set aside the order of the Vice-Chancellor. Thereafter, the signatures of petitioner No. 2 were attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 24-7-95. However, the validity of the order of attestation, referred to above, was challenged before the Deputy Director of Education and the Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 4-8-1995 stayed the operation of the said order. Feeling aggrieved petitioners have filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22847 of 1995. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 28-9-1995. 3. It appears that on 31st July, 1995 original suit No. 928 of 1995 was filed by the petitioner No. 1 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from interfering in the management of the plaintiff in any manner. An application for temporary injunction was also filed before the Civil Court. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division, Kanpur Nagar) by his order dated 25-8-1995 allowed the application of the petitioner for temporary injunction. The defendants i. e. Muslim Association and others were restrained from interfering in the management of the petitioner over the college. In the operative portion, it was however, observed/directed as under : @hindi "3nf*np sffireikf % surfer 3 *ft ?*r anfcr ^r ^ft Jnrre *$ $w \" a copy of the order of Civil Judge is contained as annexure XVII to the writ petition. In the operative portion, it was however, observed/directed as under : @hindi "3nf*np sffireikf % surfer 3 *ft ?*r anfcr ^r ^ft Jnrre *$ $w \" a copy of the order of Civil Judge is contained as annexure XVII to the writ petition. 4. It may be noted that neither the Vice Chancellor nor the University nor any other authority or officer of Education Department was impleaded in the said suit as a defendant. 5. On the basis of the order of the Civil Court dated 25-8-1995, referred to above, an application for recognition of the petitioners committee of management was filed before respondent No. 1. It was also prayed that the District Inspector of Schools be directed to attest the signatures of petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 1 instead of issuing any direction to the District Inspector of Schools for attesting the signatures of petitioner No. 2 passed the order dated 1-9-1995, whereby, as stated above, respondent No. 4 has been authorised to operate the accounts of the College and to disburse the salary to teaching and non-teaching members of the staff. 6. Respondents have put in their appearance and have filed counter affidavit controverting the facts stated in the writ petition. Ii has been asserted by the contesting respondent that petitioner No 2 has got no right to interfere in the affairs of the college. In the counter affidavit the history of the establishment of the college and its upgradation to the standard of degree college has been stated. It has been alleged that on 28-10-1994 petitioner has resigned from the post of Secretary of the college and thereafter, he attempted to set up a parallel body and applied for renewal of the registration of the society clandestinely and obtained order behind the back of Sri Ishrat Qayutn. It has been asserted that he having resigned from the post of Secretary of the Society has no concerned whatsoever with the affairs of the society or of the college. It has been stated that respondent No. 3, Shri Faheem Ahmad was rightly recognised by the Vice Chancellor and petitioner No. 2 illegally and behind the back of the contesting respondent procured the order of the Vice Chancellor and, thereafter, got his signatures attested clandestinely vi*ie order dated 24-7-1995 and it was rightly stayed by respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 4-8-1995. It has also been stated that Civil Court acted illegally ia granting injunction order, however, petitioner No. 2 was not restrained from handling financial matters of the college. Respondent No. 1 thus, rightly authorised respondent No. 4 to operate the accounts of the college in exercise of his power under Section 60-D of the Act after following the procedure prescribed under jaw. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued several points but for the purposes of disposal of the present petition it is not necessary to note and deal with all those points, the writ petition may, in my opinion, be allowed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and provisions of Section 60-D of the Act. 9. In Paragraph 26 of the writ petition it has been stated that the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 1 without affording an oppor tunity of hearing to the petitioners In counter affidavit the contents of paragraph 26 of the writ petition have not been denied. On the other hand, it has been asserted that no notice was required to be given to peti tioner No. 2. 10. It is well settled in law that the orders placing the accounts of the college under Single operation or orders appointing authorised controller cannot be passed by the authorities without affording an opportunity of hearing. In the present case also the opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned was not given. 10. It is well settled in law that the orders placing the accounts of the college under Single operation or orders appointing authorised controller cannot be passed by the authorities without affording an opportunity of hearing. In the present case also the opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned was not given. In proviso 2 of sub-section (1) of Section 60-D of the Act it has been provided as under : "60-D. Procedure for payment of salary in case of colleges.- (I) The management of every college shall, for the purposes of disbursement of salaries to its teachers and employees open in a scheduled bank or a co-operative bank or post office, a separate account (hereinafter in this Chapter called "salary Payment Account) to be operated jointly by a representative of the manage ment and by the Deputy Director or such other officer as may be authorised by the Deputy Director in that behalf: Provided that after the Salary Payment Account is opened, the Deputy Director may, if he is subject to any rules made under Section 60-H, satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, instruct the bank that the account shall be operated by the representative for the management alone, and may at any time revoke such instruction : Provided further that in the case referred to in sub-section (3), or where in any other after case giving to the Management an oppor tunity of showing cause, the Deputy Director is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, the Deputy Director may instruct the bank that the Salary Payment Account shall be operated only by himself or by such other officer as may be authorised by him in that behalf, and may at any time revoke such instruction. (2) The State Government may, from time to time, require by general or special order that the Management of a college shall deposit in the Salary Payment Account, such portion of the amount received, from students as fees and also such portion, if any, of the income received from any property, movable or immovable belonging to or endorsed wholly or partly for the benefit of the college, and by such date, as may be specified in that order, and thereupon, the Management shall be bound to comply with such direction. (3) Where the Deputy Director is of opinion that the Management has failed to deposit the fees in accordance with the provision of sub-section (2) or the orders issued thereunder, the Deputy Director may, be order, prohibit the Management from releasing any fees from the students and thereupon, the Deputy Director may release the fees (either through the teachers of the college or in such other manner as he thinks fit) directly from the students and shall deposit the fees so recovered in the Salary Payment Account. " 11. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision reveals that orders under the aforesaid section could be passed by the Deputy Director of Educa tion. Whenever it was necessary or expedient so to do to operate the Salary Payment Account by himself or by such other officer as may be authorised by him in that behalf only after giving the Management an opportunity showing cause. 12. The present case is not covered by the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 60-D of the Act. It was thus, obligatory upon the Deputy Director of Education to afford an opportunity of hearing or showing cause to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 13. As stated above, no opportunity of showing cause was at all given to the petitioners and the impugned order was passed according to the orders passed by the Civil Court which was binding upon the parties, recognising the right of the petitioner to manage the affairs of the college. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions the order passed by respondent No. 1 is liable to be quashed. 15. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 1-9-1995, contained in annexure XX to the writ petition, is quashed. The case is sent back to the respondent No. 1, the Deputy Director of Educa tion, Kanpur for decision afresh in the light of the observation made above. It is further directed that dispute shall be decided after affording an oppor tunity of being heard to the parties and by means of reasoned order within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. It is further directed that dispute shall be decided after affording an oppor tunity of being heard to the parties and by means of reasoned order within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. It is further observed that in case respondent No. 1 finds diffi culty in passing the appropriate orders on account of serious dispute with regard to the Management of the college between the rival groups, the matter may be, referred to the Vice-Chancellor for decision under Statute 13. 34 of the Kanpur University in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .