JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13th January. 2009 of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24-Parganas appointing Sri Tapan Kumar Chakraborty, Assistant Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24 - Praganas as Drawing & Disbursing Officer to draw and disburse grants-in-aid to Guma Rabindra Vidyapith High School and for other purposes as mentioned therein. The ground for issuing the impugned order is that the District Inspector of Schools considered it necessary to appoint a Drawing & Disbursing Officer for removing administrative vacuum in the school which is not expedient for making payment of grants-in-aid through the funds of the school. 2. The writ petition having been moved on 21st January, 2009, this Court had granted interim order staying operation of the impugned order for reasons recorded therein. The Court was of the view that the Managing Committee of the school having been reconstituted in April, 2008 and necessary approval having been sought for from the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in June, 2008, question of there being an administrative vacuum would not arise. Also, there was no allegation in the impugned order that the Managing Committee had been reported to have misused and mismanaged Government funds warranting appointment of Drawing & Disbursing Officer. 3. Today, when the writ petition is taken up for consideration. it is submitted by Ms. Gutgatia, learned Counsel appearing for the State respondents, that the Managing Committee of the school has not been disbursing salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff regularly for which the situation has become absolutely chaotic and the aggrieved staff have filed several writ petitions before this Court claiming their salary. It is also her submission that the District Inspector by an order dated 20th January, 2009, issued in modification of the order impugned herein, has given fresh reasons for which he considered appointment of a Drawing & Disbursing Officer necessary for the school i.e. the representatives of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school have detached themselves from the Managing Committee for a long time. By relying on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 2nd November, 2006 in W.P.No.23885(W) of 2006, she further contended that the members of the Managing Committee of the school have no right to claim that grants-in-aid be disbursed in any particular manner and through them. By relying on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 2nd November, 2006 in W.P.No.23885(W) of 2006, she further contended that the members of the Managing Committee of the school have no right to claim that grants-in-aid be disbursed in any particular manner and through them. She accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the petitioners has denied receipt of the order dated 20th January, 2009 and submits that the Court ought not to consider the same unless the same is brought on record by an affidavit. 5. The order of modification has been looked into and this Court having considered the materials before it and the rival contentions is of the clear opinion that neither the impugned order nor the order issued in modification thereof sufficiently reflect materials based whereon the District Inspector could have formed an opinion that circumstances exist for appointment of a Drawing & Disbursing Officer in the school. It would appear from a bare perusal of Rule 27(3) of the Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969, that power thereunder could be exercised subject to formation of an opinion in respect of the situation mentioned therein. Unless there be a valid formation of opinion, exercise of power would be bad and illegal. True it is that the members of the Managing Committee of the school have no right to claim observance of audi alterem partem principle prior to appointment of a Drawing & Disbursing Officer and such an order may not effect their right, nevertheless such an order could be challenged on limited grounds and one of such grounds would be that the opinion has been formed on the basis of extraneous and irrelevant considerations. This seems to be the view expressed by this Court in its decision reported in AIR 1981 Cal 105 which the Court while deciding W.P. 23885(W) of 2006 referred to supra did not have the occasion to consider. That there is an administrative vacuum in the school is not borne out from the materials on record. This seems to be the view expressed by this Court in its decision reported in AIR 1981 Cal 105 which the Court while deciding W.P. 23885(W) of 2006 referred to supra did not have the occasion to consider. That there is an administrative vacuum in the school is not borne out from the materials on record. The fresh reason given in the order of modification that there has been detachment of representative of teaching and non-teaching staff from the Managing Committee for a long time has not impressed this Court in view of lack of particulars and, therefore, the same cannot for a moment persuade this Court not to interdict in the present case. Members of a Managing Committee are at least entitled to a disclosure of the materials that might have weighed in the mind of the District Inspector to form an opinion. An order under Rule 27(3) of the Rules cannot reflect his ipse dixit. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13th January, 2009 and the subsequent order dated 28th January, 2009 though not on record stand set aside. 6. The District Inspector of Schools (SE) shall be at liberty to issue fresh order based on valid formation of opinion that appointment of a Drawing and Disbursing Officer in the school is absolutely necessary. If such an order is passed, the District Inspector of School must disclose therein the materials based whereon opinion has been formed by him. However, in such an event the District Inspector of Schools shall authorize the Drawing & Disbursing Officer to exercise power to such extent as is permissible in terms of Rule 27(3) of the Rules and not otherwise. 7. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent mentioned above. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Liberty is granted to the parties to communicate the gist of this order. 9. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible. Appeal allowed.