JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. : In both the writ applications, common question of law and fact being involved, on the prayer and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1823 of 2005 chal¬lenge the order of the Regional Director of Education, Sambalpur dated 16.10.2004 (Annexure-8) approving the reconstitution of the Governing Body of Prabhu Dayal Rural College, Kesaibahal in the district of Sambalpur mainly on the ground that the reconstitu¬tion of the Governing Body could not have been made nor approved on the basis of a resolution of the General Body forwarded by the Secretary of the Governing Body in his letter dated 30.4.2004 (Annexure-7) in absence of recommendation for reconstitution made by the outgoing Governing Body within the stipulated time in terms of Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Manage¬ment of Private Junior College/Higher Secondary Schools), Rules 1991 (hereinafter called ‘the Management Rules’). In W.P.(C) No.676 of 2005, the writ petitioners challenge the notification dated 6.1.2005 of the Government of Orissa in the Department of Higher Education dissolving the said Governing Body of Prabhu Dayal Rural College, Kesaibahal, constituted and approved by order dated 16.10.2004 of the Regional Director, Education, Sambalpur (Annexure-1) on the ground that the State Government could not have dissolved the Governing Body on the basis of an allegation of the M.L.A., Laikera dated 19.10.2004 on the alleged ground of mismanagement by the Governing Body while the Governing Body was approved only three days before such allegation and thus the question of mismanagement did not arise. 3. In W.P.(C) No.676 of 2005, opposite party No.1 has filed a counter affidavit; so also opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have filed a joint counter affidavit and opposite party No.4 a separate counter affidavit. The Regional Director, opposite party No.2 in his affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3, has clearly stated that the Governing Body of the College in question was reconstituted and approval was accorded by the Regional Director of Education, Sambalpur vide office Order No.4277 dated 16.10.2004 under Annexure-1 to the writ application with Shri Basudev Singh Mohapatra as President and Sri Khatunath Ping as the Secretary of the Governing Body. The Government in Higher Education, Department vide letter No.41243 dated 19.10.2004 called for certain information with views as to the mal-administration of the Governing Body in the aforementioned college as per letter of Shri Brundaban Majhi, M.L.A., Kuchinda addressed to the Minister, Higher Education. In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, the Regional Director has specifically stated that since the aforesaid letter/complaint, i.e. the com¬plaint from the M.L.A. was received within four days from the date of approval of the Governing Body, there was hardly any scope to assess the functioning of the Governing Body and accord¬ingly an interim report was sent to the Government vide letter No.4417 dated 1.11.2004 intimating, inter alia, other matters and non-receipt of any information regarding the mal-administration of the Governing Body. However, it is stated in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit that in consideration of the gravity of the allegations made by the M.L.A. a show cause notice was issued vide letter No.4782 dated 7.12.2004 by the Regional Director to the Secretary of the Governing Body setting out the main allega¬tions and asking for a show cause as to why the Governing Body would not be dissolved but there was no response from the Govern¬ing Body. According to the Regional Director, the Director, Higher Education, considered the matter and thought it proper dissolve the Governing Body and keep the governance of the col¬lege under the charge of Sub-Collector, Kuchinda. The Government was moved accordingly and ultimately, the impugned order has been passed. 4. The counter affidavit of opposite party No.1 reveals that the Regional Director of Education, Sambalpur, was asked to submit a report on the allegation received from M.L.A., Laikera vide Department letter No.41243 dated 19.10.2004. The Regional Director by his letter dated 21.12.2004 reported regarding mal-functioning of the Governing Body of the College and recommended for dissolution of the same. The report has been annexed as Annexure-A/1. The allegation of pressure from the local M.L.A. has been denied inasmuch as it has been submitted that in order to stop the mismanagement and to keep smooth administration, the Government passed the order dissolving the Governing Body. 5. The purported report of the Regional Director dated 21.12.2004 (Annexure-A/1) makes an interesting reading. The report indicates that Shri Brundaban Majhi, M.L.A., Laikera Assembly Constituency called on the Regional Director on 20.12.2004 and apprised of the mal administration by the Govern¬ing Body of P.D.R. College, Kesaibahal. 5. The purported report of the Regional Director dated 21.12.2004 (Annexure-A/1) makes an interesting reading. The report indicates that Shri Brundaban Majhi, M.L.A., Laikera Assembly Constituency called on the Regional Director on 20.12.2004 and apprised of the mal administration by the Govern¬ing Body of P.D.R. College, Kesaibahal. He expressed his unhappi¬ness on the Governing Body and the conduct of the Governing Body members. The M.L.A. referred to his complaint petition dated 9.9.2004 filed before the Minister, Higher Education and request for dissolving the Governing Body. In the pen-ultimate paragraph of the report, the Regional Director submitted that in view of the non-response from the Governing Body on one side and the personal complaint of the M.L.A. of the area, it was considered just and proper to go for dissolving the Governing Body approved by the Regional Director on 16.10.2004 in the educational inter¬est of the College and to avert any untoward situation between the Governing Body and the M.L.A. The purported show cause notice dated 7.12.2004 (Annexure-A/2) issued by the Regional Director of Education to the Secretary of the Governing Body indicates that the Governing Body was asked to show cause on the basis of the allegation of Shri Brundaban Majhi, M.L.A. with regard to unfair practice in admission of students, conduct of examination and management of finance etc. The allegation further indicates that the Governing Body was indulging in meting out torture to some of the staff members and reasonable co-operation was not extended to the M.L.A. on his visit to the college. The M.L.A. and his nomi¬nees were also threatened by the college authorities. 6. In view of the admitted position that the Governing Body of the college was reconstituted and approved by order dated 16.10.2004, the Government pursuant to the allegation from the M.L.A. in their letter dated 19.10.2004 asked for a report from the Regional Director on the alleged mis-management etc. as indicated in Annexure-A/2. The matter then proceeded till disso¬lution of the Governing Body by the State Government. The entire action is based on the allegation of the local M.L.A.. as indicated in Annexure-A/2. The matter then proceeded till disso¬lution of the Governing Body by the State Government. The entire action is based on the allegation of the local M.L.A.. When the Governing Body was approved hardly three days before the letter dated 19.10.2004 was issued by the Government, we have no hesita¬tion to hold that the entire procedure adopted by the educational authorities are unknown to law and on the sole basis of the allegation of the nature made by the local M.L.A., no action could have been taken. The action taken is also the outcome of non-application of mind since the educational authorities ought to have found that the Governing Body having not started function¬ing, the allegation of mal-administration or committing of irreg¬ularities did not arise for consideration. Solely on the basis of an allegation in the nature made by the M.L.A., the responsible officer of the Education Department like the Regional Director, the Director and ultimately the State Government could not have dissolved a duly constituted and approved Governing Body without a proper enquiry and ascertaining the truth of the allegations made. The allegations are otherwise vague and prima facie untena¬ble. In such view of the matter, we have no hesitation to quash the order in Annexure-4 issued by the Government of Orissa in the Department of Higher-Education dissolving the Governing Body of P.D.R. College, Kesaibahal in the district of Sambalpur in noti¬fication dated 6.1.2005. 7. Now the question to be considered is as to whether the office order dated 16.10.2004 (Annexure-8 in W.P.(C) No.1823/05) issued by the Regional Director of Education, Sambalpur can be sustained in law in view of the allegations made in W.P.(C) No.1823 of 2005. In view of the pleadings of the parties, in terms of the Management Rules, the proposal for reconstitution of the Governing Body has to be sent to the prescribed authority, 90 days prior to the expiry of its term. Admittedly, no resolution was passed nor any proposal was sent to the competent authority for reconstitution of the Governing Body. The proposal in Annex¬ure-7 was mooted by the Secretary of the Governing Body on the basis of a resolution purportedly made by the General Body. Admittedly, no resolution was passed nor any proposal was sent to the competent authority for reconstitution of the Governing Body. The proposal in Annex¬ure-7 was mooted by the Secretary of the Governing Body on the basis of a resolution purportedly made by the General Body. In view of the provision of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 of the Manage¬ment Rules, 1991 if the outgoing Governing Body does not pass a resolution nominating members, the Director shall be competent to reconstitute the Governing Body obviously in consonance with Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Education Act. The Director has not taken any suo motu action but has acted according to the recom¬mendation of the so-called General Body forwarded by the Secre¬tary of the Governing Body which is impermissible in law. The Director could have exercised his power as contemplated under the rules and could not have acted in terms of the resolution of the General Body which was forwarded by the Secretary of the Govern¬ing Body without following the procedure laid down under the Rules. In such view of the matter, we quash the order dated 16.10.2004 (Annexure-8) reconstituting and approving the Govern¬ing Body of P.D.R. College, Kesaibahal in the district of Sambal¬pur. 8. In view of the fact that reconstitution of the Govern¬ing Body as well as the dissolution thereof have been quashed, at present there remains no Governing Body to manage the institution till reconstitution is made by the Director in accordance with the rules. However, the Government has appointed the Sub-Collec¬tor to act as the president of the Governing Body in the impugned order in Annexure-4 while dissolving the Governing Body. We accordingly deem it proper that the college should now be managed by the Sub-Collector, Kuchinda, who shall also take steps for reconstitution of the Governing Body in accordance with the rules. It goes without saying that the interim order passed in this case stands vacated in view of the disposal of the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated. There shall be no order as to costs. R. N. BISWAL, J. I agree. Petitions allowed.