ORDER Gohil, J. -- 1. Appellant-society through its office bearers have filed this writ appeal under section 2(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the order dated 10.4.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4687/2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Maharaja Jiwajirao Education Society is a registered society under the provisions of M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (No.44 of 1973) (hereinafter, referred to as "the Adhiniyam, 1973"). The appellant society is running two educational institutions, namely, Samrat Ashok Technological Institute (Engineering College), Vidisha and Samrat Ashok Technological Institute (Polytechnic College), Vidisha. Last elections of the society were held on 21.4.1997 and late Madhav Rao Scindia was elected as President and Dr. Padam Chand Jain was elected as Secretary. Madhav Rao Scindia died on 30.9.2001 and after his death Jyotiraditya Scindia was inducted as member of the society on 11.12.2001 and was elected as President. It was the allegation of the appellant society that after the assembly election in December 2003 and after BJP coming into power, due to political rivalries a show cause notice dated 16.1.2004 was issued to the society that why the governing body of the society should not be superseded. Various allegations were levied against the society. Another show cause notice was issued and in exercise of power conferred by section 33(8) of the Adhiniyam 1973, it was directed that governing body of the society shall function under the supervision and with the approval of Administrator and ultimately vide order dated 11.10.2004 the working committee of the governing body was superseded and Sanchalan Samiti has been nominated. The detailed reply of the show cause notice was submitted and the order was challenged in Writ Petition No.4687/200S. Before that, another Writ Petition No.702/2004 was filed but the same was disposed of by order dated 19.8.2004, as the order was modified. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition No.4687/2005 against the order of supersession, against which the society has filed this writ appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition No.4687/2005 against the order of supersession, against which the society has filed this writ appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Shri Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel, vehemently argued mainly on three points - firstly, that the society cannot be superseded, as the aid is given by the Government to the institution, not to the society and he referred the definition of the State aided society in section 2(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Ashskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (for short "Adhiniyam 1978") and also referred the provisions of All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 (in short "AICTE Act 1987") and his submission was that the society has not received any grant from Government, it is the institution which has received the grant and in support of his contention, he cited decision of Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of TM.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2002)8 SCC 481 . Secondly, it was further argued that the action of the respondent State superseding the society is totally biased and has been passed on political considerations. He drew our attention to Annexure P-S8, which is a letter written to the advocate by Minister for preparation of the draft of the order of supersession. It was further argued that no opportunity of hearing was granted and no allegations were made about the misuse of the funds but they are regarding the technical lapses, such as, not holding the annual meetings in accordance with rules and not maintaining the register of members and on such grounds without providing opportunity to cure the defects the supersession cannot be ordered. Therefore, the supersession of the society is arbitrary, illegal and suffers from political bias. Thirdly, it was also argued that the society has not committed any illegality, the funds were not misused and the colleges were being managed efficiently by the committee. Therefore, the supersession of the society is arbitrary, illegal and suffers from political bias. Thirdly, it was also argued that the society has not committed any illegality, the funds were not misused and the colleges were being managed efficiently by the committee. Finally, it was argued that as laid down under section 33 of the Adhiniyam 1973 the society can only be superseded maximum for a period of three years and the period of supersession cannot be extended for more than three years and in any case the order shall not remain in force for more than three years in aggregate and the period of three years has expired on 11.10.2007. Therefore, it was finally argued that now the direction should be given for fresh election of the society. 5. Shri R.N. Singh, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State with Shri S.B. Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General, supported the action of the State Government in superseding the society as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the State Government is providing grant to the society and not to the institution. The institution is a part of the society. In the Adhiniyam of 1978, the word "institution" might have been used but the grant is provided to the society because the society is having the legal status. On the question of extension of period of supersession of society it was submitted that if under the law the society cannot remain in supersession for more than three years, he will advise the Government for holding the elections and taking action in accordance with law. 6. Shri R.D. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 refuted the arguments of Shri Vivek Tankha, supported the action of the State Government and submitted that the grant is being given to the society and not to the institution and, therefore, the society can be superseded, as it is a grant-in-aid society. Since the society has made persistent default, as stated in the show cause notice, therefore, the action is justified. There is no scope for any interference in the action taken by the State. 7. Shri Surya Narayan Singh, Advocate appearing for respondent No.4 also supported the action of the State Government appointing Sanchalan Samiti, as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. There is no scope for any interference in the action taken by the State. 7. Shri Surya Narayan Singh, Advocate appearing for respondent No.4 also supported the action of the State Government appointing Sanchalan Samiti, as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the definition of "institution" defined under section 2(e) of the M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Praday) Adhiniyam, 1978 (for short "Anudan Adhiniyam of 1978"), under which grant-in-aid is being provided to the educational institutions. According to this definition, "institution" means a non-Government School or non Government Educational Institution for higher education for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government or from the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog, as the case may be, established, administered and managed by a society registered or deemed to be registered, under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (No.44 of 1973). From this definition, it is clear that an institution is entitled to receive grant, which is established, administered or managed by a society. From the facts on record, it is clear that two institutions - Engineering College and Polytechnic College at Vidisha have been established and being administered and managed by a society registered under the Adhiniyam of 1973, and the institutions are not independent legal bodies or having independent existence or status not receiving grant-in-aid independently. If the institutions are receiving grant-in-aid it means they are receiving through the society, as society is registered and having its legal status. The institutions are receiving grant-in-aid because they are established, administered and managed by the society under the Adhiniyam, 1973. Thus, from this provision it is clear that an institution is not having any independent legal status unless it is registered as society under Adhiniyam, 1973, and therefore, is not entitled to received grant. Under the law it has to be held that it is the society, which is a registered body having legal status, is entitled to receive the grant. Under the law it has to be held that it is the society, which is a registered body having legal status, is entitled to receive the grant. The appellants have admitted that the society has managed funds from block grant received from the Government and any amount received from any source is administered and managed by the society and the learned Single Judge has also elaborately discussed this question and has found that the grant was released to the society and not to the institution and the same fact has been mentioned in the balance sheet of the society. As admitted in this case, the aforesaid two institutions are having no separate legal entity, society is the parent body which is registered under the Adhiniyam, 1973 and has legal entity to receive the grant under Anudan Adhiniyam of 1978. Therefore, this argument of learned counsel for the appellant cannot prevail that the grant was given to the institute, not to the society and society cannot be treated as aided society and cannot be superseded. Therefore, we are of the view that in the case in hand only the society, which is registered body, is entitled to receive the grant and not the institutions, which are not legal bodies, and the grant was given to the society for running the institution. 9. Learned counsel for the parties have also made rival submissions elaborately on various other issues but all the learned counsel appearing were agreed on this legal position that under proviso of sub-section (3) of section 33 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 the society cannot remain under supersession for more than three years in aggregate. Sub-section (3) of section 33 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 reads as under: "Provided that no such order shall remain in force for more than three years in the aggregate." 10. Initially, the society was superseded for a period of one year and the period was further extended. Now admittedly, the order of supersession was passed on 11.10.2004 and on 11.10.2007 the maximum period of three years has expired in aggregate, therefore, under the proviso of subsection (3) of section 33, the society cannot remain in supersession and as per the aforesaid legal position the supersession period has automatically come to an end. Now admittedly, the order of supersession was passed on 11.10.2004 and on 11.10.2007 the maximum period of three years has expired in aggregate, therefore, under the proviso of subsection (3) of section 33, the society cannot remain in supersession and as per the aforesaid legal position the supersession period has automatically come to an end. Therefore, as per the admitted legal position on record, three years' period which can be the maximum period of supersession of the society has come to an end and after the expiry of the period of three years, the order of the State Government shall legally stand vacated and the respondents are bound to hold fresh elections of the society, as the last elections were held in the year 1997 and in any case peliod of supersession cannot be extended. 11. As discussed above, the legal position under the law is very clear that an aided society cannot remain in supersession for more than three years, the period of supersession cannot also be extended more than three years in aggregate, the order of supersession shall stand automatically vacated after expiry of the period of three years and as a necessary consequence the respondent Government have to hold fresh elections as per the bye-laws. Thus, at this stage when we are holding as above, it will be futile to examine the other arguments raised by the parties on the question of allegations made in the show cause notice as well as on the question of grant of opportunity of hearing so also on political bias as has been vehemently argued in the light of letter Annexure P-58, though it speaks volume about intention behind supersession. 12. Thus, in the light of the clear and legal position, as per proviso of sub-section (3) of section 33 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, we hold that the society cannot remain in supersession after expiry of period of three years in aggregate and the order of supersession stands vacated, therefore, we direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to ensure the elections of the society positively within a period of three months according to bye-laws and thereafter to handover the management of the society to the legally elected committee in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own cost. 13. Appeal is finally disposed of.