A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) COMMITTEE of Management, Lal Bahadur Shastri Post Graduate College, Mughal Sarai, district chandauli through its manager Sheo Shanker Tewari filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8444 of 1998 with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 26th February, 1998 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by State Government (Respondent No. 1) in exercise of its powers under Section 58, U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (for short called Act ). Petitioners also claimed writ of mandamus to restrain respondent Nos. 2. 3 and 4 not to interfere with the working of the Committee of Management. Interim order was passed. ( 2 ) AT the bar, it is stated that the matter was finally heard but final judgment could not be delivered. Petitioners themselves subsequently filed an application to dismiss as infructuous said writ petition No. 8444 of 1998. The said application was allowed and Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous vide Judgment and order dated 17th May, 1999. ( 3 ) WHEN the above writ petition was pending. It appears that original term of Authorized controller under the order dated 26th February, 1998 was coming to end. Certain correspondence ensued between the concerned authorities of the State and the Authorized controller of the Institution. The State Government ultimately passed impugned order dated 16th april, 1999 whereby term of Authorised Controller was extended for six months with effect from the date when original term was to come to an end, i. e. , 26th February, 1999. ( 4 ) THIS Court had directed the respondent to place original record which has been made available for perusal of the Court and it has been perused. ( 5 ) COPY of the judgment and order dated 20th April, 1999 has been filed as Annexure-9. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has made three submissions : (i) The original order appointing Authorised Controller having already lapsed, there can be no extension of his term. (ii) Perusal of the impugned order shows that there is complete non-application of mind inasmuch no reason, as required under law, has been recorded. (iii) Additional material having been taken into account. Respondent No. 1 ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner of hearing to the petitioners. (ii) Perusal of the impugned order shows that there is complete non-application of mind inasmuch no reason, as required under law, has been recorded. (iii) Additional material having been taken into account. Respondent No. 1 ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner of hearing to the petitioners. In other words, it is contended that in case of taking fresh material into account, it should comply with all requirements of Sections 57 and 58 of the Act irrespective of the fact that it is a case of considering extension of term. ( 7 ) SECTION 57 of the Act contains Ground No. I to V on the basis of which alone Authorised controller can be appointed. Section 58 of the Act confers power upon the State Government to extend term of Authorised Controller subject to the condition that the State Government is of opinion that it is expedient to do so in order to secure proper management of the college and its property. ( 8 ) A bare reading of Sections 57 and 58 of the Act shows that the powers exercised under these sections are quasi-judicial, as also held in the decision in 1998 (3) ESC 1903 (Paragraphs 8 to 13 ). ( 9 ) KEEPING the above in view, one should interpret first proviso of Section 58, which requires that State Government must form an opinion that it is expedient to extend the term of Authorised controller for the purpose of securing better management of the college and its property. Then arises second question as to what is the basis, to form opinion. It goes without saying that opinion cannot be formed In abstract or in vacuum. There must be sufficient material to judge and to form opinion on the subject and it will be expedient only when it Is neither arbitrary nor whimsical. ( 10 ) TAKING away managements vested right to discharge its obligations under the Act is a serious thing. No authority can be permitted to resort to powers under Sections 57 and 58 of the Act lightly. Whatever be the yardstick for exercise of power while issuing original order by appointing Authorised Controller, should be applied while considering question of extension of term of Authorised Controller and there is no good reason to take a different view. No authority can be permitted to resort to powers under Sections 57 and 58 of the Act lightly. Whatever be the yardstick for exercise of power while issuing original order by appointing Authorised Controller, should be applied while considering question of extension of term of Authorised Controller and there is no good reason to take a different view. ( 11 ) IN the case in 1982 ALJ 1403 (DB) (LB) : 1983 UPLBEC 75, this Court held that term of an authorised Controller cannot be extended on the ground that management failed to remove the alleged defects. The reason is obvious. Management cannot be expected to remove defects when it is divested of powers to manage. ( 12 ) THE record in the instant case shows, apart from other things, that Authorised Controller in the Instant case took no steps whatsoever on the ground that he had no time to do discharge his duties as such. If that be so, appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak is a mockery and exercise of power under Sections 57 and 58 of the Act is futile. ( 13 ) TAKING into account the circumstances that Authorised Controller did not perform his duties and allowed the situation as such, there is no justification for his continuance. ( 14 ) I have perused the show cause notices dated 18th September, 1977 and 23rd December, 1997 (Annexures-2 and 4 to the writ petition ). They show that there was some dispute regarding working of officiating principal. The said show cause notice does not indicate that there was any serious charge of unusual nature or any other continuous default to warrant exercise of powers under Sections 57 and 58 of the Act. Present Management is not found guilty of persisting with the fault because of negligence or inaction on its part or any action on its part not within permissible limits of its duties. ( 15 ) CONTENTION of the petitioner that order of extension has been passed mechanically, and there is complete non-application of mind, is borne out from perusal of the original record, it is evident that neither there was no matehal before the concerned authority nor the explanation of authorised Controller has been taken into account. ( 15 ) CONTENTION of the petitioner that order of extension has been passed mechanically, and there is complete non-application of mind, is borne out from perusal of the original record, it is evident that neither there was no matehal before the concerned authority nor the explanation of authorised Controller has been taken into account. ( 16 ) ORIGINAL record further shows that no authority applied its mind to the material on record for forming an opinion as required under first proviso of Section 58 of the Act. Report of the authorised Controller (wherein he recommended for allowing Committee of Management to take back the charge in the interest of Institution for no reason) has been ignored. ( 17 ) IN view of the above, impugned order dated 6th April, 1999 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition)is set aside. Respondents are directed to hand over charge forthwith to the Committee of management from whom it was taken. ( 18 ) WRIT petition is allowed. No order as to costs. .