R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by Sri Ravindra Ravindra Vidya Samsthe of Chalakere seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the report dated 20. 12. 1997, Annexure 'k' and the subsequent order dated 27. 2. 1998, Annexure 'q' with a direction to grant all consequential benefits and also to handover the records to the petitioner in the given circumstances. In the amended petition, the petitioner states that the petitioner-society was registered in the year 1984. It runs educational institutions at Chalakere. According to the petition averments at the instance of certain vested interest, in the year 1996, the teaching staff created certain problems. Management took some stern action in the matter. That action had an adverse affect in the matter. According to the petitioner, several reckless allegations were made at the instance of the vested interest in the matter. The petitioner was admitted to the Grant - in - Aid code in the year 1989. College was declared as an institution run by the linguistic minority in terms of an order dated 29. 10. 1994. The petitioner states that without notice and without opportunity, the 4th respondent was appointed as a special officer in terms of an order dated 8. 7. 1997, Annexure 'c' Writ Petition was filed in this Court in W. P. No. 24995/1997. The 4th respondent took charge and took all the records to his custody. Thereafter, the respondent withdrew the order in terms of another order dated 24. 1. 1. 1994. This Court in the light of the memo disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner in terms of an order dated 24. 11. 1997, Annexure 'd' The petitioner refers to certain material details as referred to in annexure 'c' in the petition. The management sought for some explanation from the teachers and also sought for permission from the 3 respondent to take appropriate action against the staff who was responsible for the poor results in the college. 'the staff made false allegations against the management by way of reckless allegations. Based on those allegations and without holding an enquiry, the 3rd respondent appointed a special officer. The special officer did not handover the charge to the petitioner even after disposal of the petition filed by the petitioner. A notice was received on 22. 11. 'the staff made false allegations against the management by way of reckless allegations. Based on those allegations and without holding an enquiry, the 3rd respondent appointed a special officer. The special officer did not handover the charge to the petitioner even after disposal of the petition filed by the petitioner. A notice was received on 22. 11. 1997, Annexure 'e' under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration act, 1960 (for short 'the Act' ). In the said notice, it is stated that an enquiry has been initiated on the basis of the complaint made by the staff members in the matter. The petitioner sought for time to produce documents in the light of seizure of the documents by the special officer. Time was not granted. Enquiry proceeded and a report was submitted in terms of Annexure 'g'. In terms of the report, the 3rd respondent recommended for appointment of an Administrator. ( 2 ) A Show cause notice was issued dated 16. 1. 1998. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why an administrator was not to be appointed under Section 27a of the Act. Time was again sought for by the petitioner in the light of the documents being not available with them. Time was granted. The petitioner refers to various material facts with regard to the documents and with regard to handing over the charge in the matter. They however, sought for copies of the documents in terms of a letter dated 16. 2. 1998, Annexure 'l'. They also sought for handing over the documents which was seized from the petitioner. No documents were furnished to the petitioner. Thereafter, an order was passed in terms of an order dated 27. 2. 1998 and an administrator has been appointed. The petitioner in the lengthy petition challenges the report of the appointment of an administrator in terms of Annexures 'k' and 'q' in this petition. ( 3 ) SEVERAL applications have been filed and several parties wanted to come on record by way of several IAs. IAs have been considered by this Court by way of several orders. ( 4 ) THE 6th respondent has filed a statement of objection and in the statement of objection, the 6th respondent justifies the matter. ( 5 ) A detailed statement of objection was filed by the State Government on 28. 2. 2000. IAs have been considered by this Court by way of several orders. ( 4 ) THE 6th respondent has filed a statement of objection and in the statement of objection, the 6th respondent justifies the matter. ( 5 ) A detailed statement of objection was filed by the State Government on 28. 2. 2000. Along with the objection statement, the Government has annexed as many as 18 documents in the case on hand. The Government states in the counter that the petitioner fraudulently claim recognition as linguistic minority institution. An enquiry has been ordered in this regard. An intensive and extensive enquiry is held by C. O. D. Several documents have been filed in the case on hand. According to the respondents, the report dated 15. 9. 1992 is forged by Sri Venkaleshappa. The petitioner-institution gets more than Rs. 5 lakhs per month as salary grant from the Government. In addition it gets hostel grants, students scholarships etc. The money received by the government is mis-used and mis-appropriated in terms of the averments made in the objection statement. The Government refers to various omissions and commission on the part of the petitioner. The Government also refers that there is no building, no infrastructure to run the colleges. The petitioner had the benefit of grants of Rs. 56 lakhs per year in favour of 99 teaching and non-teaching staff. Release of grants is very much in excess in the case on hand. They also refer to the audit report with regard to mis-appropriation of the amount by the institution. Several omissions are forthcoming in the petition. They also refer to certain criminal proceedings in terms of Penal laws. Various material details have been stated with regard to the circumstances that led to an action by the Government. They also refer to various litigations at various levels in the objection statement. They justify their action. ( 6 ) ADDITIONAL statement of objection was filed on 10. 2. 2003. It is stated therein that a suit has been filed seeking recovery before the jurisdictional Civil Judge at. Chalakere. They also refer to an enquiry held by C. O. D and the report submitted by C. O. D. They refer to Section 27a to say that the order appointing administrator was extended from time to time. ( 7 ) ON 16. 7. 2004, additional affidavit is filed by the petitioner. Chalakere. They also refer to an enquiry held by C. O. D and the report submitted by C. O. D. They refer to Section 27a to say that the order appointing administrator was extended from time to time. ( 7 ) ON 16. 7. 2004, additional affidavit is filed by the petitioner. In the additional affidavit it is stated that initially the Government passed an order appointing an administrator for a period of 6 months and the same was extended from time to time. By a period of 6 months, according to the petitioner and according to law the maximum period that could be brought in such cases is 4 years. The 4 years period has come to an end on 26. 2,2002 and thereafter two more years are over. They refer to various proceedings in the matter. They say that the administration cannot legally continue in terms of the Statute. ( 8 ) FURTHER statement of objection is filed on 2. 8. 2004. They again refer to the C. O. D. report in the additional objection. They also refer to the proceedings required under Section 26 of the registration Act. They say that a show cause notice has been issued in accordance with law. They categorically state that the petitioners are involved in cheating Government with a tune of rs. 1,93,72,000/ - as reported by the C. O. D. They say that 4 years period can further be extended in the interest of public. A rejoinder is filed on 4. 8. 2003. In the rejoinder allegations are denied. ( 9 ) MATTER is heard for final disposal. Sri M. Narayan Bhat, learned Counsel appears for the petitioner. Sri Nagarajulu Naidu, learned Government Advocate, Sri K. Gopal Hegde, learned counsel appear for the respondents. ( 10 ) SRI Narayana Bhat, learned Counsel apart from attacking the material findings contends that 4 years period is over and no further extension of time is possible or permissible in terms of section 27a of the Act. Learned Counsel therefore says that he is entitled to succeed on these legal grounds in the given, circumstances. He would also deny various allegations made against the petitioner. ( 11 ) PER contra, Sri Nagarajulu, learned Counsel for the State states that a reading of Section 27a shows that a further time is possible or permissible in terms of the very section itself. He would also deny various allegations made against the petitioner. ( 11 ) PER contra, Sri Nagarajulu, learned Counsel for the State states that a reading of Section 27a shows that a further time is possible or permissible in terms of the very section itself. Even otherwise, he says that material facts do require a constant vigil in the interest of public revenue. ( 12 ) AFTER hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. Admitted facts would reveal that the Government has chosen to invoke its power in terms of Section 27a of the Karnataka societies Registration Act. Initially the order was passed on 27. 2. 1998. The same was extended from time to time. 4 years period has come to an end on 26. 2. 2002. Even now, the administrator is in charge of the institution. Let me see as to whether in terms of Section 27a, the administrator can continue as an administrator in terms of the laws governing these matters. Section 27a provides for appointment of an administrator. It provides for reasons being recorded in writing for the purpose of an order under Section 27a. It provides for an order being not exceeding 6 months at a time, The said section has been amended from time to time. Initially it was for 6 months and thereafter in terms of the Karnataka Act 65/1976, it was amended providing thereby two years in terms of Section 27a of the Act. The Act was further amended in terms of the Act No. 7/88 thereby providing 4 years instead of 2 years in terms of Sub Section 1 of Section 27a of the Act. The appointment of an Administrator is on account of certain omissions and commission in terms of Section 27a of the Act. It provides for appointment of an administrator in writing for a period not exceeding 6 months at a time and it further provides that appointment is however subject to the provision of Clause 5, the aggregate period shall not extend beyond four years. Sub Section 5 of Section 27a provides for further extension (6 months in the interest of public ). Therefore, the extension 6 months is subject to Clause 5 of Section 27a. Section 27a makes it categorically clear that the aggregate period shall not extend beyond 4 years. Sub Section 5 of Section 27a provides for further extension (6 months in the interest of public ). Therefore, the extension 6 months is subject to Clause 5 of Section 27a. Section 27a makes it categorically clear that the aggregate period shall not extend beyond 4 years. Legislature in its wisdom has fixed maximum period of 4 years for appointment of an administrator in terms of Section 27a. It stands to logic. An administrator cannot be continued forever and appointment of an administrator under Section 27a is for a fixed period to meet certain circumstances and for reasons in terms of Section 27a of the Act. Therefore, Sri Bhat, learned Counsel is right in his submission that beyond maximum 4 years, the administrator appointed under Section 27a cannot continue any longer. Therefore, 1 deem it proper to accept his plea that a direction is to be issued to cancel the appointment of an administrator beyond 4 years in the given circumstances. ( 13 ) FROM the material available on record, it is seen that serious allegations are made against the petitioner. There are several reports available on record with regard to various omissions and commission on the part of the petitioner in the matter of management and administration of the institution. C. O. D Reports and audit reports are available. Prima facie, cases are also pending. Public money is involved. In the given circumstances, this Court has to step in and exercise its constitutional power to see that public funds are protected at least for some time in the interest of public money. Therefore, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court deems it proper to appoint the Deputy Director of P. U. Board, Chitradurga, as "court Trustee" to protect the interest of public money/institution and/the students in the matter. Therefore, apart from setting aside the appointment of an administrator, in the light of 4 years time, this Court appoints the Deputy Director of P. U. Board for a period of 6 months from today so that the government would take appropriate measures/steps in the matter. This Court further deems it proper to direct that all grants from the Government has to be routed only through the Deputy director for the purpose of disbursement of salary and any other sum to the rightful persons in terms of the grant. This Court further deems it proper to direct that all grants from the Government has to be routed only through the Deputy director for the purpose of disbursement of salary and any other sum to the rightful persons in terms of the grant. The Deputy Director is also to be routed only through the all records of the institution. The administrator is to handover all the records to the Deputy Director within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to obtain copies of the same after filing a representation to the Deputy Director in the matter. The administration has to be done subject to the supervision and control by the Deputy Director. Any policy decision has to be subject to the approval of the Deputy Director. This arrangement is only an interim arrangement only for a period of 6 months. Liberty is reserved to the government to decide the matter in accordance with law and in a manner known to law within six months. Liberty is also reserved to the parties for expediting the pending proceedings in the interest of the parties themselves. ( 14 ) IN the result, this petition is partly allowed. This Court declares that any continuance of the administrator is illegal in terms of Section 27a of the Act. This Court directs the present administrator appointed under Section 27a to handover the charge to the Deputy Director and the Deputy Director is to act in terms of the directions contained in the earlier portion of this order. ( 15 ) ORDERED accordingly. No opinion is expressed on the various rival contentions urged by the rival parties.