JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Impleadment application is allowed. 3. Let Sri Murari Lal Sharma and Ram Autar may be impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 4. Counter-affidavit filed on their behalf may be taken on record. 5. Heard Sri P. S. Baghel on behalf of the petitioner, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri P. C. Mishra on behalf of newly added respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 6. The Committee of Management S.P.G. Inter College Eka, Firozabad through its Manager Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak has filed this writ petition against an order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 22nd August, 2003, whereby the Regional Joint Director of Education, in exercise of powers under Section 6 (3) of the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971, has superseded the Committee of Management and has appointed an Authorised Controller in the institution. 7. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the aforesaid order dated 22.8.2003, is liable to be set aside on the ground it contains absolutely no reasons. It is submitted that the order dated 22nd August, 2003, visits the petitioner with evil civil consequence, as such recording of reasons is must and in absence thereof the order cannot be sustained. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohal Lal, AIR 1974 SC 888. 8. On behalf of respondents it is contended by the learned standing counsel that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Director under Section 7 of the Payment of Salaries Act, as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It is further submitted that the petitioner Committee of Management is involved in serious irregularities. Further the term of the elected Committee of Management had expired in the year, 2002, valid elections thereafter have not taken place and as such the Committee is not entitled to any protection of this Court. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 10. Before adverting to the merit of the writ petition, it is necessary to consider the objections raised on behalf of the State-respondent Nos. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 10. Before adverting to the merit of the writ petition, it is necessary to consider the objections raised on behalf of the State-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by the learned standing counsel with regards to the availability of the alternative remedy. 11. The objections raised on behalf of the learned standing counsel, in the facts of the case, is legally not sustainable. From the impugned order it is apparently clear that after noticing the allegations, which were made in the show cause notice against the petitioner, the only fact mentioned in the order is that a reply has been filed by the petitioner and the reply so filed is not satisfactory. 12. In the opinion of the Court there are absolutely no reasons assigned in the order for disagreeing with the explanation furnished by the petitioner and in absence thereof the order is rendered arbitrary and does not fulfil the requirement of third principle of natural justice as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in AIR 1990 SC 194, wherein it has been held that recording of reasons is third principle of natural justice. Even otherwise reference may also be had to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1970 SC 1302 , paras 4 and 5, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of reasons filing of appeal is an ample formality. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, 1999 (2) AWC 2.54 (SC) (NOC) : (1998) 8 SCC 1 , has held that alternative remedy will not bar entertainment of a writ petition if the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 13. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position this Court is of the opinion that in the facts of the case bar of alternative remedy is not attracted and the writ petition, as filed by the petitioner, is not liable to be rejected no the aforesaid ground. 14. 13. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position this Court is of the opinion that in the facts of the case bar of alternative remedy is not attracted and the writ petition, as filed by the petitioner, is not liable to be rejected no the aforesaid ground. 14. So far as the merits of the writ petition are concerned, it may be noted that on the report of the District Inspector of Schools to the effect there are serious irregularities in the institution, the Regional Joint Director of Education issued a show cause notice to the petitioner vide letter dated 31st July, 2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted a detailed pointwise reply, to the allegations made in the said show cause notice vide his letter dated 11th August, 2003. 15. It is not in dispute that the reply submitted by the petitioner has been received in the office of Joint Director of Education. In the reply so submitted by the petitioner, the allegations made against the Committee of Management were specifically denied, including the alleged relationship between the teachers and other appointed staff, with the Manager of the institution. The Regional Joint Director of Education has passed the impugned order dated 22.8.2003, which has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition without even noticing the said pointwise reply and without recording any reasons for disagreement thereof. 16. In the first paragraph of the order, the Regional Joint Director of Education has only stated the contents of the show cause notice, which were issued to petitioner and thereafter in paragraph 2 he has noticed the reply submitted by the petitioner and has thereafter proceeded to record conclusion to the effect that the reply submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory. For ready reference paragraph 2 of the order of Joint Director of Education is being quoted hereinbelow : “Is Sambandh men is karyalay ke patrank Ma/3660/ 02-03 Dinank 31.7.2003 dwara prabandhak ko notice diya gaya jiska uttar prabandhak ke patra dinank 11.8.2003 men prapt huaa. Prapt uttar ka bhali bhanti parikshnoparant par uttar purnatah santoshjanak nahin paya gaya.” 17. From the aforesaid order of the Regional Joint Director of Education it is apparent that there has been complete non-application of mind to the explanation furnished by the petitioner. 18. Prapt uttar ka bhali bhanti parikshnoparant par uttar purnatah santoshjanak nahin paya gaya.” 17. From the aforesaid order of the Regional Joint Director of Education it is apparent that there has been complete non-application of mind to the explanation furnished by the petitioner. 18. This Court fails to see as to on what basis of Regional Joint Director of Education has come to conclusion that the explanation furnished by the petitioner is not satisfactory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in AIR 1976 SC 1785 , has held that reasons are links between the facts and findings and in absence of the reasons the order cannot be sustained. 19. In view of the said legal position, the order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 20. It is submitted at this stage on behalf of the respondent that admittedly the term of the Committee of Management had expired and the fresh elections set up by the petitioner have not been recognised by the Regional Level Committee. 21. From the record it is apparent that the relevant papers pertaining to elections of the Committee of Management were transmitted through the office of the District Inspector of Schools to the Regional Level Committee of which the Regional Joint Director of Education is the Chairman and in response thereto a notice was also issued by the Joint Director of Education calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation in respect of certain infirmities noticed in the alleged elections of 2002. Reply to the notice was furnished by the petitioner as early as on 23rd January, 2003. Till date no order has been passed by the Regional Level Committee. 22. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no parallel dispute of the Committee of Management in the institution and it is only the Principal of the Institution namely respondent No. 3 Murari Lal Sharma who is interfering in the peaceful functioning of the Committee of Management, while the respondent No. 4 is the member of the General Body. 23. 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is also provided that it shall be open to Regional Joint Director of Education to pass a fresh order in exercise of powers under Section 6 (3) of the Payment of Salary Act within one month, after taking into consideration the explanation furnished by the petitioner. The order to be passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education shall be supported by reasons. It is further provided that the papers submitted by petitioner Committee of Management in respect of the elections held in the year, 2002 may also be processed and Regional Level Committee may take decision with regard to legality or otherwise of the elections within same period of one month. 24. With these observations, writ petition is allowed.