On 4.7.92, me Managing Committee was constituted for Pub-Baralimari High School. That school was Aided High School. Thereafter on 17.5.94 in exercise of the power under Rule 6 of the Assam Aided Higher Secondary, High and Middle Schools Management Rules, 1976 (as amended) this Managing Committee constituted earlier was desolved and another Managing Committee was constituted vide Annexure 2 to the writ application. It is this reconstitution of the Managing Committee which is challenged on two grounds : (1) on the ground that this Committee was constituted in violation of the principles of natural justice; (2) that the Headmaster was not made the Secretary as required under Rule 4 (c) of the Assam Aided HS & MS Management Rules, 1976. Rule 4 (c) and Rule 6 are quoted below : "Rule 4 (c): Hie Principal of the Higher Secondary School, the Headmaster of the High School or the Head Master of the Middle School shall be nominated by the Government as ex-officio Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school, unless there is any specific allegation against any Principal or Headmaster of Higher Secondary School or High School and Middle School. Rule 6: The Inspector of Schools may dissolve and reconstitute a Managing Committee at any time, if circumstances so demand subject to the approval of the Director save in cases where such approval may be presumed to have been obtained under any general or special orders of the Director." 2. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondents 3,4,7, 8,9,10, .11 and 12 and there in paragraph 7 it is inter-alia stated as follows : "...... Petitioner No. 2 in the writ petition and who purports to represent the Managing Committee, that is, petitioner No. 1 has been involved in clandestine activities which have come to light now. The Headmaster of the school is involved in a racket of persons issuing false and vague transfer certificates for valuable considerations. On 10.10.93, the SI of Police, In-charge Sutrapara PP had filed an ejahar before the Officer-in-charge Juria Police Station stating that in course of house search of the petitioner No. 2 on 1.10.93 some false transfer certificates, admission cards and other false documents were recovered from his house. It was also stated that the Headmaster used to issue false transfer certificates to different students by obtaining money from them. It was also stated that the Headmaster used to issue false transfer certificates to different students by obtaining money from them. On the basis of die said ejahar, Juria PS Case No. 190/93 under section 468/471/420 of the Penal Code was registered. Subsequently in connection with the Juria PS case No. 84/94 under section 468/470 and 420 of the Penal Code the Headmaster was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on 5.7.94. Subsequently the writ petitioner Na 2 was granted bail hi connection with Juria PS Case No.,190/93 on 15.7.94 and in connection with Juria PS Case No. 84/94 on 16.7.94." 3. Along with this affidavit-in-opposition certain orders passed by the learned CJM in the criminal cases pending against the Headmaster ha»also been annexed. The admitted position is that as on today, the Headmaster, the petitioner No.2 in this writ application has been put under suspension. In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 it is stated in para 7 inter alia as follows : -"That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 9 and 10 of the petition, the deponent begs to state that this deponent received some complaints from local people of Pub-Baralimari against the petitioner No. 2 (Headmaster) regarding issuing of false transfer certificate, misappropriation of scholarship money etc. This deponent had no option than to nominate the petitioner No.-2 as Joint Secretary of the Managing Committee under Rule 4 (c) of the Assam Aided Higher Secondary, High and Middle English Management Rides 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Rules 1976)." 4 In paragraph 10 of the affidavit it is inter alia stated as follows: "That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the petition, the deponent begs to state that upon receiving various complaints from the local public as well as the students of that school, the deponent had no other alternative but to pass the order re-constitution the Managing Committee as the circumstances demanded to do so." 5. I have heard Mr. KK Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Devi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. AK Goswami, learned counsel for other respondents. 6. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention relies o the following decisions : 1. (1988) 1 GLR 474 (Dhiresh Barman vs. District Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar & others). KK Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Devi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. AK Goswami, learned counsel for other respondents. 6. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention relies o the following decisions : 1. (1988) 1 GLR 474 (Dhiresh Barman vs. District Elementary Education Officer, Kokrajhar & others). That was a case regarding dissolution of the Managing Committee under the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. In paragraph 4 of the judgment the law has been laid down as follows : “The rule itself does not expressly provide for giving an opportunity. However, by now it is settled that where there is no mention of natural justice in a statutory provision the same should be interpreted in consonance with the principles of natural justice unless it is specifically excluded. There is no specific exclusion in the instant case. Besides, in none of the impugned orders we gather any idea as to what were the allegations and what were their nature and gravity and how the management of the school would be affected thereby.” The case does not help the petitioner inasmuch as quoted above in the instant case there are serious allegations against the Headmaster and as well as the Managing Committee. The allegation are so serious that already criminal cases have been instituted against the Headmaster and he was behind the bar and he has been put under suspension. 2. The next case is AIR 1981 SC (SL Kapoor vs. Jagmohan & others). That was a case under the Punjab Municipal Act and there in paragraph 9, the Supreme Court pointed out as follows : “A committee as soon as it is constituted, at once, assumes a certain office and status, is endowed with certain rights and burdened with certain responsibilities, all of a nature commanding respectful regard from the public. To be stripped of the office and status, to be deprived of the rights, to be removed from the responsibilities in an unceremonious way as to suffer in public esteem, is certainly to visit the committee with civil consequences.” That was a case where the allegations as against the Municipal Committee were not disclosed and it was superseded without disclosing the allegations. The same is not the case here. The same is not the case here. Here the allegations against the committee have been disclosed and as to why it has been superseded has been mentioned in the affidavit and I have already quoted the allegations extensively. This case also does not help the petitioner. 3. (1983) 2 GLR 353 (Sushil Kumar Sen vs. State of Assam & other). That was a case regarding minority institution and in paragraph 5, the Court pointed out as follows : “'Before this is done, let it be stated that according to us if an existing Managing Committee has to be dissolved due to some allegations against it, principles of natural justice would demand that they should be apprised of the same and appropriate opportunity should be given to them to have their say in the matter as dissolution of such a committee involve civil consequences of the nature described in S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan AIR 1981 SC 136 . It is well-settled by now that natural justice has to be respected even in administrative action if they adversely affect a person or involve civil consequence." 7. The principle of natural justice cannot be placed in a water tight compartment. It will vary from case to case. By applying the straight jacket form of natural justice the legality and validity of an order cannot be assailed or and order cannot be quashed on that ground. After all the writ Court exercising equitable jurisdiction and in the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction the writ Court may refuse to interfere with an order if that order does not cause miscarriage of justice or if there is no substantial failure of justice. Mere infractions of principle of natural justice may not be a sufficient ground, and in the facts and circumstances of this case, it may be stated that there was some violation of natural justice, but that itself is not a ground to quash the impugned order and accordingly, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. Stay order passed earlier stands vacated. I leave me parties to bear their own costs.