A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) SHRI A. N. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Committee of Management, Attarra mahavidyalaya, Atarra, District Banda called the committee of Management through its president-Jagpat Singh; learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and , Sri ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashok Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Dr. Nand lal Shukla (who had filed an application of impleadment) as well as Ms. Sadhna Upadhyay, advocate on behalf of S. K. Agrawal claiming to be the Joint Secretary of the Committee of management of the College, present and heard; also perused the record of the case. ( 2 ) DR. Nand Lal Shukla and Sri S. K. Agrawal filed impleadment applications which have been rejected by separate orders of date but said persons have been allowed to be heard as contemplated under Chapter XXII, Rule 5-A, Rules of Court. ( 3 ) THE preliminary objection, raised by Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, on the first day of hearing of the case, that Ghan Shyam Singh (who had originally filed the Writ Petition on behalf of the Committee of Management of the College claiming to be the Manager) had no authority to represent the Committee of Management of the College, no more survives since Jagpat Singh, the undisputed President of the Committee of Management of the College, subsequently filed an application for amendment of the writ petition (which is on record) to join and represent the committee of Management. The opposite parties did not claim to file counter affidavit to the same except submitting their protest orally. Since none came forward to represent Committee of management of the College except Jagpat Singh as President, the Court allowed the said amendment Application. ( 4 ) I have heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record. ( 5 ) PETITIONER contends that the State Government has acted arbitrarily and exceeded in its jurisdiction in passing the impugned notice/order No. 1842/sattar-2-2003-3 (20)/2002, dated 23rd May, 2003 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition), called the Order of Suspension while suspending Committee of Management of the College without affording opportunity of hearing against the charges contained in the said order. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also complains that he was not served with the order/notice no. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also complains that he was not served with the order/notice no. 1838/sattar-2-2003-3 (20)/2002, dated May 23, 2003 under Section 57, U. P. State universities Act, 1973, (called the Act ). Copy of said order, has been, however, brought on record as Annexure-2 to the affidavit (sworn by aforementioned Dr. Nand Lal Shukla) filed in support of his impleadment application and hereinafter called show Cause Notice. ( 7 ) IT is interesting to note that the above show Cause Notice was not received by the petitioner as submitted by his Counsel and instead a copy of show Cause Notice is being produced from the possession of the aforementioned Dr. Nand Lal Shukia. Moreover, order of suspension/annexure-l to the writ petition itself mentions that Notice was being issued and not that it had been already issued. This indicates that petitioner was not made available with the copy of show Cause Notice while order of Suspension was served upon the Committee of management of the College. Section 58 (2) of the Act reads : "where the State Government while issuing a notice under Section 57 is of opinion, for reasons to be recorded, that immediate action is necessary in the interest of the College, it may suspend the Management, which shall thereupon cease to function, and make such arrangement as it thinks proper for managing the affairs of the College and its property till further proceedings are completed: provided that no such order shall remain in force for more than six months from the date of actual taking over the Management in pursuance of such order: provided farther that in computation of the said period of six months, the time during which the operation of the order was suspended by any order of the High Court passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or any period during which the Management failed to show cause in pursuance of the notice under Section 57, shall be excluded. " ( 8 ) SECTION 58 (2) of the Act, 1973 contemplates that when State Government forms opinion, for reason to be recorded, that immediate action is necessary in the interest of the College, it may suspend the Management, which shall thereupon cease to function and in its place proper alternative arrangement is made for managing the affairs of the College. ( 9 ) THE question to be adjudicated by the Court in the instant case is whether the impugned order of suspension of the Management of the College/annexure-1 to the writ petition is in consonance with the provisions of Section 58 (2) of the Act. To be precise, in other words, this court is to decide whether reasons have been recorded so as to warrant immediate action, excepting requirement of opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management of the college in the interest of the College. It is, therefore, to be seen whether reasons have been recorded so as to furnish a palpable ground to resort to drastic/extreme step and justify exercise of emergency power of suspension of Committee of Management of the College without giving opportunity of hearing of the concerned. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons recorded in the impugned order of suspension/annexure-1 to the Writ Petition is not only cryptic/casual but too general and merely and apology for reasons. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that the reason mentioned in the impugned order, translated in English, is administrative and financial irregularities of serious nature which is very casual, ambiguous and general. One cannot from the said reason, make even a wild guess of any specific instance or a particular/definite matter which may have been in the mind of the state Government and which may have provided good cause for arriving at the conclusion of resorting to drastic action under Section 58 (2) of the Act. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite parties, however, submitted that requirement of recording reasons under Section 58 (2) of the Act is fully satisfied in the order of Suspension. ( 13 ) IN my considered opinion a drastic action of suspension of Committee of Management of the college on a casual statement in general terms fail to satisfy the requirement of recording reasons under Section 58 (2) of the Act. Besides the above, the impugned order does not at all show application of mind. ( 14 ) AN order of suspension under Section 58 (2) of the Act, is of serious consequence because it deprives the concerned of its right to manage the affairs of its College without giving opportunity of hearing, which is otherwise a basic requirement of law. Besides the above, the impugned order does not at all show application of mind. ( 14 ) AN order of suspension under Section 58 (2) of the Act, is of serious consequence because it deprives the concerned of its right to manage the affairs of its College without giving opportunity of hearing, which is otherwise a basic requirement of law. Suspension of committee of Management cannot be permitted by taking recourse to casual approach, i. e. , by mere recital of expression irregularities are serious in nature. It is not the label but the substance which is required to satisfy the requirement of law. ( 15 ) IN this context, learned Counsel for Dr. Nand Lal Shukla attempted to demonstrate that the charges contained in the show Cause Notice arc serious in nature and the order of suspension should be read along with show Cause Notice. ( 16 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri A. N. Sinha, Advocate on the other hand, disputes above and the veracity of the charges. ( 17 ) THIS approach, as suggested by the learned Counsel for Dr. Nand Lal Shukla, cannot be approved in law inasmuch as the requirement of recording reasons in the order of suspension cannot be supplied by the Court or anyone else. It is the State Government alone which has to supply reasons by recording them in the "order of suspension". ( 18 ) THIS Court at this stage, is not supposed to adjudicate upon the correctness of the charges. It is the duty of the State Government under Section 57 of the Act. Otherwise also, controversy regarding correctness of charges in the show Cause Notice is beyond the scope of the present petition since it is confined to the legality of the order of suspension under Section 58 (2) of the act. It will suffice to mention at this stage, that what is to be done by the State Government, but not done in law, the same cannot be done by the Court to remove the lacuna in the impugned order of suspension/annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. It is the State Government alone which had to record reasons. Deficiency on that score in the order, cannot be either made good later by showing from other material that it can be sustained as being good order. It is the State Government alone which had to record reasons. Deficiency on that score in the order, cannot be either made good later by showing from other material that it can be sustained as being good order. ( 19 ) ALSO in view of the judgment and order dated 13. 2. 2003 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 47029 of 2002, Dr. Ram Ashrey Chaurasia v. Director of Education and Ors. , and certified copy of the judgment in S. T. No. 340/90, State v. Ghanshyam Singh and Ors. , (placed before the court by the opposite parties) do go to show that Committee of Management of the College had, whether good or bad, at least an excuse of the matter of appointment of Dr. Nand Lal Shukla being sub-judice. Similarly the charges referring to non-absorption of employment under dying in harness rules of cadre strength and their non-absorption thereby exceeding sanctioned posts, non-payment of balance many with regard to 1995 and charging of development-fee in excess, cannot be prima facie, said to be of a nature which may have precipitated emergency so as to call for an immediate action and in respect of which State Govt. could have waited for a couple of weeks so as to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing order of suspension of Committee of Management of the College. ( 20 ) EVEN otherwise, prima facie, the charges in the show Cause Notice do not appear to be new but rather stale as they are alleged to be prevailing since long. Also they do not appear to be of such nature that reasonable time could not be given to the petitioner to submit explanation. The charges seemingly did not warrant an immediate action of suspension of Committee of management or to show that such action was imminent or unavoidable to safeguard interest of the College. ( 21 ) I find that the impugned order No. 1842/sattar-2-2003-3 (20)/2002, dated 23rd May, 2003 annexure-1 to the Writ Petition, suffers from manifest errors apparent on the fact of record, for that reason it cannot be sustained in law. ( 21 ) I find that the impugned order No. 1842/sattar-2-2003-3 (20)/2002, dated 23rd May, 2003 annexure-1 to the Writ Petition, suffers from manifest errors apparent on the fact of record, for that reason it cannot be sustained in law. ( 22 ) IN the result, the aforesaid impugned order No. 1842/sattar-2/2003-3 (20)/2002, dated 23rd may, 2003 under Section 58 (2) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 Annexure-1 to the Writ petition, suspending Committee of Management of the College is set aside with a direction to the parties to appear on 15th June, 2003 and file their respective written representations, if any, along with certified copy of this judgment before Respondent No. 1 and the said authority, after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, decide the matter afresh in accordance with law on or before 31st August, 2003. Decision of the Respondent No. 1 in the case shall be communicated forthwith by R. P. A. D. ( 23 ) THE Writ Petition is allowed subject to the directions mentioned above. No order as to costs. . .