C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER was the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No. 3 i. e. Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University (hereinafter referred to as the 'university' State Government came to the conclusion that the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') without detriment to its interest, it exercised the powers conferred under Section 52 (1) of the Act and issued notification dated 8-1-1999 directing that the provisions of Sections 13, 14, 20 to 25, 40, 47, 48, 54 and 67 shall apply to the University; subject to the modification specified in the Third Schedule of the Act. After the issuance of the aforesaid notification, the Chancellor of the University in exercise of the power conferred under modified Sections 13 and 14 read with Section 52 (3) of the Act and in consultation with the State Govt. by notification dated 8-1-1999, appointed Sri V. K. Dalela, Commissioner, Raipur Division as the Vice-Chancellor of the University. After issuance of the notification by the State Govt. dated 8th January, 1999, exercising its power to apply the provisions of the Act in modified form, Registrar of the respondent University issued notice dated 8th January, 1999, intimating that the administration of the University shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, in the modified form. By this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the aforesaid notifications and notice. ( 2 ) DEHORS, subter fuge, facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 17th January, 1996, for a period of 4 years. During the continuance of the aforesaid appointment, State Govt. earlier exercised its power under Section 52 of the Act and one Prof. H. R. Singh was appointed at the Vice-Chancellor. As a result thereof, the appointment of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor came to an end. He challenged the same by filing writ petition before this Court which was registered as W. P. No. 1807/97. This Court by its Judgment dated 13-5-1998 : (AIR 1999 Madh Pra 122) passed in W. P. No. 1807/97 allowed the writ petition holding that the power exercised by the State Govt. He challenged the same by filing writ petition before this Court which was registered as W. P. No. 1807/97. This Court by its Judgment dated 13-5-1998 : (AIR 1999 Madh Pra 122) passed in W. P. No. 1807/97 allowed the writ petition holding that the power exercised by the State Govt. under Section 52 of the Act as also appointment of Prof. H. R. Singh as the Vice-Chancellor was illegal. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner was again allowed to function as the Vice-Chancellor of the University from 16-5-1998. ( 3 ) IT is the stand of the petitioner that after his joining; he discovered as embezzlement of Rs. 50,89,000/- against the erstwhile Registrar Sri P. V. Trivedi and his successor A. K. Shukla. It is the stand of the petitioner that the Chancellor of the University wanted that the case be dropped against them; but guided by his conscience, he instituted a high power committee to go into the question of the financial irregularity. Such committee never became functional. It is further assertion of the petitioner that the Chancellor of the University not only prescribed the petitioner to drop enquiry into the embezzlement case against the previous Registrars, but thought the current Registrar Sri A. K. Srivastava, was forcing him to perpetuate another financial fraud by giving contract to the printer of his choice for printing question papers of supplementary examination at a cost of Rs. 15,65,000/ -. However, the name of the printer purportedly of the choice of the Chancellor has not been disclosed in the writ petition. Petitioner asserts that resisting all sorts of pressure from the Chancellor, he got the question papers printed in just less than Rs. 2,00,000/- and this action of the petitioner annoyed the Chancellor. He has also stated in the writ petition that on being exposed before the public for his interest and involvement in financial fraud and embezzlement, the Chancellor engaged the Registrar as a tool to effect his removal. Petitioner has gone to the extent of saying that in collusion with the accused in embezzlement Sri P. V. Trivedi and Sri A. K. Shukla, the Chancellor hatched conspiracy to invoke Section 52 for the removal of the petitioner. ( 4 ) IT is relevant here to state that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner for the irregularities committed by him between the period 19-1-1996 to 23-2-1997. ( 4 ) IT is relevant here to state that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner for the irregularities committed by him between the period 19-1-1996 to 23-2-1997. Irregularities found to have been committed by him pertained to increase of 10 marks of all students in the paper of 'law of Evidence' of LL. B. 1st Year, 'public International Law' and 'administrative Law' of examinees of IInd Year and 'indian Administration Act' of the examinees of IIIrd Year. It was further found that in the B. A. IInd Year examination of 'general English', students getting marks between 1-20 were given five additional marks and students getting marks between 21-35 were given two additional marks. As a result of aforesaid oral order, altogether 18,716 students were benefitted but the same was done without the approval of the Competent Authority. Accordingly, it was concluded that by increasing the marks of such large number of examinees, petitioner has impaired the credibillity of the University examination. It has been further found that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the fact of his visit to Indore between 23-7-1996 to 25-7-1996 in order to obtain illegal financial benefit. It has been furtherfound that during the period between February, 1996 to January, 1997 he did not remain in the Headquarter for 108 days but as required, he obtained permission of the Chancellor for leaving the Headquarter for only 9 days and thus remained out of Headquarter for 99 days and received travelling allowance for the aforesaid period. It has been further found that the petitioner demanded commission of 15% to 20% from the amount to be paid for building work and the aforesaid amount was demanded by the petitioner; also on behalf of the Chancellor which has affected the prestige of the Office of the Chancellor. It was further stated that Sri A. G. Limhe, who was appointed by the Chancellor of the University under Section 10 of the Act for making enquiry in relation to financial irregularities of the University has found that although the petitioner had made complaints about the manner of giving advances for revaluation for earlier period but for the period June, 1996 to November 1996, he himself has sanctioned advance of Rs. 31. 25 lacs, in the same manner. Having found so, the Chancellor gave a show cause notice to the petitioner (Annex. 31. 25 lacs, in the same manner. Having found so, the Chancellor gave a show cause notice to the petitioner (Annex. P/13) under Section 14 (4) of the Act as to why he be not asked to relinquish the office under Section 14 (3) of the Act. ( 5 ) PETITIONER submitted his reply to the aforesaid allegations by his letter dated 23-9-1998 and 26-9-1998. Reply submitted by the petitioner was found cryptic by the Chancellor and by letter dated 7-11-1998 (Annex. P-13) petitioner was informed that he is making attempt to distort and misinterpret the order of the High Court and accordingly he was given further time to give his reply. It is the assertion of the petitioner that after the receipt of the aforesaid communication, he met the Chancellor on 1-1-1999 and explained all the allegation. However, before taking any decision on the show cause notice given to the petitioner, State Govt. invoked its power under Section 52 of the Act and thereafter Sri V. K. Dalela, the Commissioner was appointed as Vice-Chancellor and the petitioner demitted his office. ( 6 ) FROM the pleading of the petitioner what he has tried to project is that as he did not become a tool in the hands of the Chancellor and to use his own expression he did not perpetuate another financial fraud on the pressure of the Chancellor, the Chancellor hatched conspiracy to invoke Section 52 for his removal. It is relevant here to state that the Chancellor of the University by name was impleaded as respondent No. 5, but at petitioner's request, by order dated 3-5-1999, his name was deleted. ( 7 ) GROUNDS mentioned in the notification exercising the power under Section 52 (1) of the Act reads as follows :-"1. Due to extremely distorted relations between Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur the administrative system of the University has collapsed and it has become impossible to continue the normal functioning of the University including conduction of supplementary examinations. 2 The way the Vice-Chancellor has challenged the correspondence from the office of Chancellor in the emergency meeting of Executive Council held on 15-12-1998, it has hurt the power and prestige of Chancellor as well as has demolished the University system. 3 The University has not followed norms of decency while writing letters to Chancellor's office and has directly attacked the prestige of Chancellor. 3 The University has not followed norms of decency while writing letters to Chancellor's office and has directly attacked the prestige of Chancellor. 4 The University has failed to undertake responsibility towards students, parents and society as per the provisions of M. P. Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, and there is serious decline in the credibility of University in the public mind. " ( 8 ) REASONS given in the notification dated 8th January,1999, has been elaborated by respondent No. 1 in its return. It has been stated that complaints were received from different sections and students regarding working of the University and the manner in which the respondent University was functioning, also got the attention of the media and various Newspapers published news items regarding its functioning. The Commissioner of the division sent report to the State Govt. dated 21st December, 1998, in which he has stated that the rift between the Registrar and the Vice-Chancellor has been widely published in the local newspapers. In the report he has further stated that the supplementary examinations were scheduled to commence from 19th and 22nd December, 1998, but the same have been postponed and thereafter, no fresh date or routine has been announced. Commissioner also brought to the notice of the State Govt. that the Students Action Committee of the University has called for Raipur Bandh and in the appeal, the Students Action Committee has stated that the Chancellor and the Registrar for their personal gains and for obtaining commission, crossed all the limits and are playing with the lives and career of the students. In the report, the Commissioner has further stated that there was dead-lock between the petitioner and the Registrar of the University in relation to the printing of question papers. In the report, Commissioner has stated various issues on which petitioner had confrontation with the Registrar giving rise to bitter relation between them, as a result whereof, the academic and administrative atmosphere of the University got polluted. Petitioner terms this report to be worthless and according to him, this report was sent by the Commissioner at the instance of the Chancellor, as a consequence of deal in which the former was promised to be given the office of the Vice-Chancellor. It is common ground that the Commissioner no longer continues as the Vice-Chancellor. ( 9 ) PETITIONER appears in person. It is common ground that the Commissioner no longer continues as the Vice-Chancellor. ( 9 ) PETITIONER appears in person. State of Madhya Pradesh and the Chancellor of the respondent University are represented by Sri V. K. Tankha, the Advocate General. Mr. Ajay Raizada appears on behalf of the respondent University as also the newly appointed Vice-Chancellor. Petitioner contends that Section 52 of the Act is akin and comparable to the emergency provisions contained in Articles 356 of the Constitution, which confers powers on the President by proclamation to assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State i. e. President's Rule. In support of his submisson, he has placed reliance in his earlier case i. e. N. K. Gouraha v. State of M. P. , AIR 1999 Madh Pra 122. My attention has been drawn to paragraph 24 of he aforesaid judgment which reads as under :-"24. The provisions contained in Section 52 of the Act are akin and comparable to emergency provisions contained in Article 356 of the Constitution which empower the President of India to impose his rule on the Government of a State by dissolving the elected body and assuming all functions of the Government by the President. Provisions under Section 52 have been made to meet an emergent situation which cannot otherwise be remedied by other provisions of the Act. It is a drastic action justified only in extremely extraordinary circumstances. It is to be taken as a last resort when all other efforts on the part of the Government fail to remove the alleged maladministration in the University. Resort to provisions of Section 52 is not contemplated by the Act as a remedial measure against particular conduct or misconduct of few functionaries, high or low, in the University. As has been narrated above the events go to show that the Vice-Chancellor had been taking all necessary actions, which in fact formed basis for Limaye report, for fixing the responsibility of alleged erring officials of the University concerning financial irregularities. Opinion of the Executive Council was sought for the purpose and apparently there was no allegations against the Executive Council. The State has not been able to justify as to why action under Section 52 was necessitated when on the advice of the Chancellor the Vice-Chancellor had already called the meeting of the Executive Council on 7-3-1997. Opinion of the Executive Council was sought for the purpose and apparently there was no allegations against the Executive Council. The State has not been able to justify as to why action under Section 52 was necessitated when on the advice of the Chancellor the Vice-Chancellor had already called the meeting of the Executive Council on 7-3-1997. " ( 10 ) I have my own reservation as to whether a statutory provision in a State legislation can be compared to the constitutional provision. Section 52 of the Act gives emergency power to the State Govt. to apply the provisions of the Act in modified form and in case of the exercise of the power under Section 52 by the State Govt. , the consequences which follow are that the Vice-Chancellor vacates his office, members of the Court, Executive Council or the Academic Council cease to hold the office, students representative on the Students Consultation Committee ceases to be the member of the committee until the Court, Executive Council or Academic Council is reconstituted in accordance with the modified provisions. Therefore, by exercise of the power under Section 52 of the Act, State Govt. does not assume the power of the Vice-Chancellor, the Court, the Executive Council or the Academic Council. However, when power under Article 356 is invoked, the President assumes to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State. Further, proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution over-turns the will of the sovereign i. e. people, which is not in the case when State Government exercises its emergency powers under Section 52 of the Act. ( 11 ) HAVING said so, I am of the opinion that notwithstanding the fact that the power of the State Government under Section 52 of the Act is not comparable to the power of the President under Section 356 of the Constitution of India still, the same can be exercised by the State Govt. on justifiable reasons. Foundation for the exercise of the power under Section 52 of the Act is that the State Govt. is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, without detriment to the interest of the University. on justifiable reasons. Foundation for the exercise of the power under Section 52 of the Act is that the State Govt. is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, without detriment to the interest of the University. Therefore, the condition precedent for exercise of the power under Section 52 of the Act is the satisfaction of the State Govt. that the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act without its determination. In such a situation, the Court is obliged to consider as to whether such material exists. In my opinion, the Court can go into the question of existence of material warranting action under Section 52 of the Act, but it cannot go into the sufficiency or insufficiency of the same. Reference in this connection can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Dr.) Umrao Singh Choudhary v. State of M. P. , 1994 Jab LJ 587 in which it has been held as follows :-"5. Obviously for this reason, to satisfy ourselves whether the notification is founded upon any record and whether the reasons given in support thereof, are relevant to the issue, the record was summoned, and has been made available to us. The note placed before the Governor also was placed. It is an elaborate note, pregnant with material details touching the maladministration of the University. From the record we have seen that the Government considered the above material and the Governor after due satisfaction had exercised the power under Section 52 (1 ). Though the High Court held that the action under Section 52 is legislative action, it is obviously illegal in the light of the decision of this Court in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India ( AIR 1994 SC 1918 ) wherein this Court considered the presidential proclamation under Article 356 and held that the action is not beyond the ken of judicial review. The action under Section 52 is only statutory action, but subject to judicial review. However, the Court would not sit in appeal over the opinion of the State Government. The statute gives power to the State Government. The action under Section 52 is only statutory action, but subject to judicial review. However, the Court would not sit in appeal over the opinion of the State Government. The statute gives power to the State Government. The Governor exercised his power with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in issuing the notification under Section 52. Therefore, though it was a statutory notification, the condition precedent is that the satisfaction of the State Government i. e. the Governor, with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is of the situation mentioned in Section 52 (1) and for reasons to be recorded therein, for better administration of the University, the State Government was satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the administration of the University could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Adhinyam and for better administration whereof and to prevent the detriment to the interest of the University, the State Government issued the notification "for the reasons mentioned therein" and directed that the provisions mentioned therein under Sections 13 and 14 shall not apply. When those facts are present and the State Government were satisfied of the situation contemplated under Section 52 (1), though the Court may differ from that formation of satisfaction when the Court is called upon in an appeal against the said satisfaction and may come to a different conclusion, we would not be justified to differ from the conclusion in our judicial review under Article 136 or of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. " ( 12 ) IN the backdrop of what I have stated above, now I proceed to examine as to whether any material exists which can justify the State Government invoking its emergency power. As contended by the petitioner although no material exists, the State Government has invoked its emergency power at the behest of the Chancellor. He submts that Chancellor wanted that the enquiry against the two earlier Registrars namely P. V. Trivedi and A. K. Shukla be dropped and the petitioner having not yielded to the pressure, the Chancellor persuaded the State Govt. to invoke its emergency power. He submts that Chancellor wanted that the enquiry against the two earlier Registrars namely P. V. Trivedi and A. K. Shukla be dropped and the petitioner having not yielded to the pressure, the Chancellor persuaded the State Govt. to invoke its emergency power. Further reasons projected by the petitioner is that the Chancellor wanted to perpetuate another financial fraud through the current Registrar by forcing the petitioner to give his approval to a printer of his choice for printing question papers and he having not yielded to the same, Chancellor used the Registrar as a tool to create an impass and effect his removal. He has stated that the Chancellor pressurised the petitioner in letter dated 7th December, 1998 to give printing job to a specific printer at exorbitant eight times high cost for printing question papers for supplementary examination. It has been further stated that "frustrated for non-fulfilment of his design the Hon'ble Kuladhipati directed the Registrar to keep all works relating to examination suspended till the contract was given to a printer of his choice by the petitioner. " He went to the extent of saying that in collusion with the accused in embezzlement i. e. P. V. Trivedi and A. K. Shukla, the Chancellor hatched conspiracy to invoke Section 52 for removal of the petitioner. Petitioner has further stated that the Chancellor confirmed his interest in deceptive deal for printing question papers in his letter dated 29th December, 1998. According to the petitioner, "failure to get contract for his favourable printer petitioner annoyed the Hon'ble Kuladhipati and he motivated the Registrar for indiscipline and disobedience. " He has further stated that when the petitioner did not yield to the fraud and corruption under the cover of printing question papers, same generated sense of humiliation in the mind of Hon'ble Kuladhipati. ( 13 ) PETITIONER terms the notice given to him under Section 14 (4) of the Act as to why he be not asked to relinquish the office under Section 14 (3) of the Act, as a lever to pressurise him to drop enquiry against his favourities Sri Trivedi and Sri Shukla and to obtain approval for a printer of his choice. He has further stated that "the Hon'ble Kuladhipati associated Commissioner Raipur Sri V. K. Dalela as one of the key accomplice to materialise his conspiracy to remove the petitioner "by using the emergency power. He has further stated that "the Hon'ble Kuladhipati associated Commissioner Raipur Sri V. K. Dalela as one of the key accomplice to materialise his conspiracy to remove the petitioner "by using the emergency power. " It has been stated that as a bargain for a desired report Sri V. K. Dalela was given allurement of the office of the Vice Chancellor consequent upon the vacancy caused by the removal of the petitioner. ( 14 ) IN the return, respondents have denied these allegations. Stand of the State Govt. is that it has taken decision to invoke the emergency powers on the basis of the existing material and the Chancellor did not have any role to play. Stand of respondent No. 4 is that he has given his report on assessment of the ground situation. ( 15 ) HAVING appreciated the relevant materials. I am of the opinion that the allegation of mala fides against the Chancellor of the University is not only unfounded on facts but more a figment of imagination of the petitioner than reality. In fact, his assertion of mala fide against the Chancellor is malicious. It is worthwhile mentioning here that the Chancellor was earlier impleaded as party in the writ petition but later on at the prayer of the petitioner, his name has been deleted. It is worthwhile mentioning here that all the time the petitioner emphasised that the Chancellor wanted that contract for printing question papers of supplementary examination be given to a person of his choice but ironically, petitioner has not ventured to disclose the name of such printer. He has referred to the letter dated 7th December, 1998, of the Chancellor's Secretariat which he terms to be a letter to pressurise the petitioner "to give printing job to a specific printer at an exorbitant eight times high cost. " However, from perusal of the aforesaid letter, it does not appear that it contains any whisper as to the desire of the Chancellor to give printing job to any specific printer. What interest the Chancellor had to pressure the petitioner to drop enquiry against Sri Trivedi and Sri Shukla and in what manner he has done so have also not surfaced excepting the ipse dixit of the petitioner. I am told that one of the aforesaid persons had worked in the University even before the Chancellor assumed his office. What interest the Chancellor had to pressure the petitioner to drop enquiry against Sri Trivedi and Sri Shukla and in what manner he has done so have also not surfaced excepting the ipse dixit of the petitioner. I am told that one of the aforesaid persons had worked in the University even before the Chancellor assumed his office. Petitioner seems to be a self-righteous person and considers every other person to be unjust and dishonest. He is a person who is master in the art of abuse. Report of the Divisional Commissioner cannot be brushed aside on the plea of the petitioner that he has sent the same at the instance of the Chancellor as a bargain for his appointment as Vice-Chancellor. Stand of the petitioner that the Chancellor, the Commissioner of the Division and the State Government ganged up together to invoke the emergency power is a stand of desperation and I am of the considered opinion that the State Govt. did not exercise its power mala fide at the instance of the Chancellor. ( 16 ) AS stated earlier, this Court while considering the validity of the notification of the State Government exercising emergency power cannot go into the sufficiency or insufficiency of the material but can certainly go into the question of existence of any material warranting exercise of emergency power. Mr. Tankha points out that due to extremely distorted relation between the petitioner and the Registrar of the University, the administrative system of the University has collapsed. In such a situation, Mr/ Tankha points out that State Government was left with no alternative than to exercise its emergency power. Report of the Commissioner itself shows such a distorted relationship. Commissioner has further stated that for holding the supplementary examination the Students Action Committee has called for Raipur Banch. State Government has taken into consideration that the Vice Chancellor has challenged the correspondence from the office of the Chancellor in the emergency meeting of the Executive Council. In the opinion of the State Govt. , the University has failed to undertake responsibility towards students, parents and society and in this connection, it has been pointed out that the University examinations were postponed but the new dates were not announced. ( 17 ) FROM the materials it emerge. . . . . . . . . . . In the opinion of the State Govt. , the University has failed to undertake responsibility towards students, parents and society and in this connection, it has been pointed out that the University examinations were postponed but the new dates were not announced. ( 17 ) FROM the materials it emerge. . . . . . . . . . . that the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University are in head on collision course, resulting into total chaos in the University, which in its way has affected the students. Students Action Committee has called for Raipur Bandh. Dates of examination are not being announced. Faced with such a situation, I am of the opinion that the State Govt. had no option than to invoke its power under S. 52 of the Act. What can be safely said that materials did exist for exercise of the power by the State Govt. ( 18 ) TO put the record straight, it is relevant to State that Mr. Ajay Raizada, appearing on behalf of the respondent University has placed on record the original records pertaining to mode and the manner in which the petitioner conducted himself which has resulted into total chaos in the University, but the same being not relevant for the decision, I have not taken cognizance of the same at all. I would further like to observe that much requires to be done to enforce financial discipline in the University, which does not seem to be in good shape presently. Mr. Advocate General assures me that notwithstanding the fate of this writ petition, the State Govt. shall investigate the allegation of financial bungling and shall bring the guilty to book. Assurance given to me by the learned Advocate General satisfies me for the present. He further states that the State Govt. may like to consider entrusting the matter to the Special Police Establishment for investigation. ( 19 ) HAVING found no merit in any of the submissions of the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. In view of the uncalled for and malicious allegations of the petitioner, in the writ petition, I award an exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. Petition dismissed. .