JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the parties. 2. This letters patent appeal has been preferred by Lalit Narayan Mithila University and two of its officials against order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.1.2009, whereby the writ petition filed by Dr. S.M.Naqui Imam Dental College and Hospital, Bahera, Darbhanga bearing C.W.J.C. No. 17751 of 2008 has been disposed of with observations, which in our view, are totally innocuous and do not give any finding either in favour or against any person. 3. The only reason, for which this appeal has been preferred by the University, as apparent from the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the University is an observation of the court wherein the learned Single Judge has noticed that upon certain allegations of facts the District Magistrate, Darbhanga directed for an enquiry and in response thereto the S.D.O., Benipur, Darbhanga submitted an enquiry report on 5.6.2008. In that view of the matter and in view of the fact that State Government on 113.2008 had also called for an enquiry report from the Bihar State Dental Council, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that if a report has been submitted by the Bihar State Dental Council then the State Government may pass appropriate orders and if no such report has been submitted by the council then the State may proceed on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the S.D.O., Benipur, Darbhanga. It was further clarified that the State while proceeding with such enquiry report/reports, as the case may be, shall adhere to the principles of natural justice by giving opportunity of hearing to all affected and concerned parties before taking a final decision within four months. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the observation that the Honble Chancellor has already directed an enquiry and the Chancellor is competent enough to take all necessary consequential actions against all concerned was sufficient and the writ court should have refrained from observing that the State Government may also proceed with enquiry on the basis of report/reports after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The gist of the submission is that in the matters relating to the University the Chancellor is the highest authority under the Act governing the University and it is not proper that at the same time two parallel enquiries should go on, one by the Chancellor and other by the State Government. The gist of the submission is that in the matters relating to the University the Chancellor is the highest authority under the Act governing the University and it is not proper that at the same time two parallel enquiries should go on, one by the Chancellor and other by the State Government. 5. So far as the issue of cancellation or non-cancellation of degrees issued by the University to students of the petitioner college is concerned, there can be no two opinions that University and particularly the Chancellor is the highest authority and competent to take a decision whether to cancel or not the degrees already issued, on one ground or the other. 6. There may be other nature of disputes such as physical possession of the college or criminal acts involving forgery etc. in which State may have sufficient interest and hence, in our view, it will not be proper for this court to totally prohibit the State Government from proceeding with the enquiry but it is clarified that so far as the issue relating to validity or otherwise of the degrees issued to the students of the writ petitioner college is concerned, the appropriate authority to hold the inquiry and take final decision in such matters would be the Honble Chancellor. It is expected that he shall give opportunity to the concerned parties and thereafter, take a final decision in accordance with law. In our view, all the concerned authorities should consider the matter expeditiously so that fate of the concerned students does not hang in balance for more than four months from today. With this clarification and direction the appeal is disposed of.