JUDGMENT By the Court.—The Governing Body, Christ Church College, Kanpur has filed this writ petition through its Secretary Dr. Pervez E. Deen challenging the order of Prof. H.K. Sehgal, Vice-Chancellor, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur, rejecting the proposal of termination of services of Dr. Misbahul Islam and Dr. (Mrs.) P. Richards, the teachers of the College under Section 35 (2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (in short, ‘the Act). 2. We have heard Shri Navin Sinha, Senior advocate assisted by Shri A.D. Saunders for the petitioner. Shri Umesh Narain Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Neeraj Tiwari appears for the Vice-Chancellor-respondent No. 1. Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ankush Tandon has entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Both the respondents gave statements on 5.4.2010, that they do not want to file counter affidavit and that the writ petition may be decided on the basis of documents annexed to the writ petition. 3. The ‘Christ Church College, Kanpur’ a post graduate degree college, is a minority institution, run and managed by the Christ Church College Society (in short, ‘the Society) registered on 30th May, 1956 with the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, Uttar Pradesh, Registration No. 91 of 1956-57, for the objects as set out in its ‘Memorandum’ and with primary purpose to give Christian Education and opportunities for teaching, witness, and worship, according to the faith, doctrine and practices of the Church of North India and more especially to Christian staff and students; to maintain sufficient staff to preserve and strengthen the Christian Character and purposes of the institution; to give education particularly to the people of Kanpur etc. and other allied purposes. Clause 3 of the Memorandum provides that the Bishop of Agra for the time being, or his duly appointed Commissary; the Secretary of the College Council of the CNI College in UP; the Principal of Christ Church College, Kanpur for the time being; a nominee of the Executive Committee of the Diocese of Agra, for the time being; the Principal Officer Incharge of the Kanpur Branch Office of the Agra Diocesan Trust Association for the time being; two persons to be nominated by the Bishop, were to be the ex-officio members of the Society and will constitute the first Governing Body of the Society. The other members of the Society other than the ex-officio members of the Society, were to be such individuals who may be elected as members of the Governing Body of the Society, at the Annual General Meeting of the Society, or by the Governing Body of the Society but such members shall cease to be members of the Society when they cease to be members of the Governing Body. 4. Clause 6 of the Memorandum provides that the business and affairs of the Society shall be managed by a Governing Body of not less than seven and not more than fifteen members to be constituted with the Governing Body, the Bishop of the Diocese or his duly appointed Commissary or their duly appointed nominee for the time being; the Principal of the College for the time being; the Vice-Principal of the College for the time being. In case there is no Vice-Principal, then the Warden of the Hostel for the time being; two representative of the Teachers of Christ Church College to be chosen as prescribed by the University Statutes (but not a member of the Society and four to eleven members elected by the Society in its Annual General meeting of whom at least three (excluding the Bishop and Principal) shall be from amongst such ex-officio members of the Society, as are not members of the staff of Christ Church College for the time being. Any casual vacancy among members of the Governing Body is provided to be filled in Clause 7 by the Governing Body, but any person so chosen shall retain his office only until the next meeting of the Society when the vacancy shall be filled by the Society. The Clause-8 provides that no act of the Governing Body shall be invalidated by reason of any defect in the composition or membership of the Governing Body. The office bearers of the Society in Clause-10 include a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, a Treasurer and a Secretary. Except Chairman, the office bearers shall be elected by the Society from amongst its members. The Bishop of Agra or his duly appointed Commissary shall be ex-officio as the Chairman of the Society and its Governing Body. The office bearers of the Society in Clause-10 include a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, a Treasurer and a Secretary. Except Chairman, the office bearers shall be elected by the Society from amongst its members. The Bishop of Agra or his duly appointed Commissary shall be ex-officio as the Chairman of the Society and its Governing Body. Clause 13 provides that all acts done by the Governing Body, or by any Committee, or Sub-Committee of the Governing Body, notwithstanding the existence of some disqualification, or defect in the appointment of any member of the Committee, or Sub-Committee or the existence of any vacancy in any such Committee, or Sub-Committee shall be as valid, as if such vacancy, disqualification or defect had not existed. Clause 15 under the ‘Powers And Duties Of The Office Bearers,’ provides that the Chairman of the Society shall be the Authority to take necessary action in matters regarding the appointment, suspension, dismissal, or retirement of the Principal and Vice-Principal of Christ Church College, Kanpur. The Governing Body has the powers under Clause 20 to do all such acts including to invest and draw money, to borrow money, to promote and to contribute to any enterprise, to pay all expenses, to appoint or delegate any powers, and includes powers under clause (g) as follows : “(g) To appoint, or confirm the appointment of such teachers, officers, clerks or servants as they may from time to time deem necessary, and to fix their duties and remuneration and (if considered necessary) to require securities for the proper discharge of such duties and also to suspend or discharge any teacher, officer, clerk or servant, for such reason as they deem sufficient.” 5. The Memorandum provides for general meeting of the Society to be held every three months from the date of registration and thereafter once every year in the month of April, and special meetings to be convened by not less than one-third of the members. 6. Clause 42 under the heading ‘Miscellaneous’, authorises the Principal of Christ Church College, Kanpur to appoint all teachers and other staff of Christ Church College, Kanpur, subject to confirmation by the Governing Body of the Society. Clause 43 provides that all elections shall remain in force until the next Annual General Meeting provided however that the period of membership of the teachers representative will be for one academic session prescribed by the University Statutes. 7. Clause 43 provides that all elections shall remain in force until the next Annual General Meeting provided however that the period of membership of the teachers representative will be for one academic session prescribed by the University Statutes. 7. The Memorandum does not provide for election meetings to be held annually. The Ex-Officio members of the Governing Body include the Bishop of diocese, the Principal of the College and Vice-Principal of the college and in his absence the Warden of the Hostel, two representative of the teachers and four to eleven members elected by the Society in its Annual General Meeting of whom at least three (excluding the Bishop and Principal) shall be from amongst such ex-officio members of the Society as are not members of the staff of Christ Church College. 8. The registration of the Society has been renewed from time to time and lastly vide Certificate of Registration of Societies UP No. K-1677/2005-06 dated 18.2.2006 for five years w.e.f. 10.10.2005 i.e. upto 9.10.2010. 9. Dr. Misbahul Islam and Dr. (Mrs.) P. Richards respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were permanent employees of the Christ Church College, Kanpur teaching in the Department of Urdu and Sociology since 1981 and 1986 respectively. They were appointed by the Governing Body of the College. They were served with a Memorandum of Charges, pursuant to the decision of the Governing Body in its emergent meeting dated 7.8.2009 under the Chairman of Bishop S.R. Cutting vide Statute 7.03 (1) and (2); 17.04 (1) (a), (b) and (c) and 17.06 (1) made under Section 49 (O) of the Act for having engaged themselves in misbehaviour and misconduct actively from 2.4.2009 onwards and becoming a party to unauthorised and unlawful acts of disgruntled outside elements against the College. They were more particularly charged with the incidents on 12.7.2009, 13.7.2009, 17.7.2009 and 10.8.2009 in leading a mob of about 10-15 persons on 12.7.2009 (Sunday); entering the College forcibly; threatening the gate keeper and other employees and shouting slogans, breaking open the locks of the Principals office, the Accountant’s office, the teachers’ staff room, the entrance to the general office and the gate of the stair case leading to first story and putting new locks as replacement of the legitimate locks of the College. It was alleged that on 13.7.2009, they came inside the Principals office and in the presence of City Magistrate, the C.O., Kotwali, Kanpur and the teaching staff & non-teaching staff used unparliamentary language against the Principal, which is a breach of devotion to duty and absolute integrity. On the same day, they created chaos outside the office of the Principal. On 17.7.2009, they held a press conference and issued press notes maligning the College authorities, accused the Bishop and the Secretary of the College. On 10.8.2010 at about 1.00 p.m. Dr. M. Islam sent a note that when he came to the College on the same day at 9.45 a.m he found that the lock of his department was opened by some one. His letter pad and some papers were missing. Somebody had taken a search of his department. In an enquiry, it was established that the lock of the room of the Urdu Department was intact till 9.30 a.m on the same day. His allegations were found frivolous. All this speaks of total lack of integrity and the motive for reporting false reports. 10. The respondent-teachers did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. They did not submit their defence or appear before the Enquiry Committee. The Departmental Disciplinary Enquiry Committee constituted by the Governing Body recorded evidence on each charge and found the allegations to be established. The findings of the Governing Body were submitted, in which charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were proved against these charged employees. The Charge Nos. 4 and 6 were also proved by inference by the preponderance of evidence in the form of statements of witnesses, documents, and other real evidence produced before the Enquiry Committee. The report was submitted on 23.11.2009. 11. On December 21, 2009 both the teachers were issued notices along with copy of the report of the Departmental Disciplinary Enquiry Committee. They gave reply to the allegations and the findings of the Enquiry Committee in four paragraphs. They challenged the enquiry proceedings to be void and illegal ab-initio with mala fide intentions and is conducted against the statutory provisions of the Act and the Rules only to harass them. In para-2 of the reply, they stated that the Committee constituted for enquiry into baseless charges is not a legally constituted Committee under the statutory requirements and is void ab-initio. In para-2 of the reply, they stated that the Committee constituted for enquiry into baseless charges is not a legally constituted Committee under the statutory requirements and is void ab-initio. The enquiry was held ex-parte without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicants and against the principles of natural justice. The reply of the respondent teachers was considered in the emergency meeting of the Governing Body, Christ Church College, Kanpur held on February 22, 2010. The report of Secretary/Principal presented the final report of the proceedings of the Departmental Disciplinary Enquiry Committee constituted by the Governing Body, was presented. The Governing Body resolved that in view of the Departmental Disciplinary Enquiry Proceedings, wherein the charges against the respondent-teachers were proved, and no reasonable cause has been shown in their reply to the notice issued to them on 21.12.2009, their services be terminated with immediate effect. The resolution was sent with complete proceedings with exhibits and annexures and recommendations of the enquiry along with appendix to the final order in the disciplinary case against the respondent-teachers, along with documents running in 461 pages including the statement of witnesses to the Vice-Chancellor for his approval under Section 38 (2) of the Act. 12. It is stated by Shri Navin Sinha, appearing for the petitioner that the Vice-Chancellor has, instead of satisfying himself by the procedures prescribed for removing the teachers, proceeded to enquire into the recognition of the Board of Governors of the College. The Vice-Chancellor quoted provisions of Section 35 (2) and Section 2 (13) of the Act and thereafter relying upon the report of the Registry of the University about the status of approval/renewal of the Committee of Management of the Christ Church College, Kanpur, observed that the recognition granted on 13.8.2003 had expired on 9.10.2005 and that inspite of the three letters of the University dated 16.1.2010, 10.2.2010 and 22.2.2010 the Principal/Secretary of the Committee of Management of the College has not submitted papers of renewal of the Committee of Management along with copy of the Memorandum duly certified by Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. He opined, that the Committee of Management of the Christ Church College, Kanpur is not approved after expiry of recognition since 9.10.2005. The Vice-Chancellor, accordingly, concluded that an unrecognised management cannot terminate the services of any teacher of affiliated College, therefore, the proposal is not acceptable in the light of law. He opined, that the Committee of Management of the Christ Church College, Kanpur is not approved after expiry of recognition since 9.10.2005. The Vice-Chancellor, accordingly, concluded that an unrecognised management cannot terminate the services of any teacher of affiliated College, therefore, the proposal is not acceptable in the light of law. He rejected the proposal and directed the College to permit the respondent-teachers to perform their duties and to pay their salary on month to month basis as it is being given to other teachers of the College. 13. Shri Navin Sinha submits that the Vice-Chancellor of the University has grossly erred in exercise of his powers and has acted arbitrarily in considering the report of the Governing Body of the College for approval of the decision of the Board of Governors to terminate the services of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, after concluding the departmental enquiry. Section 35 (2) of the Act provides for a report to the Vice-Chancellor in case of the decision of the management of the College to dispense or remove a teacher or to reduce him in rank or to punish him in other manner. In case of a minority institution referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the discretion of the powers of the Vice-Chancellor to approve the report is only with regard to following procedure prescribed for imposing the said punishment. The Vice-Chancellor does not have powers to consider whether the management of the College is validly recognised and had the authority to charge the teachers and to conduct departmental enquiry. 14. Shri Navin Sinha submits that Section 2 (13) of the Act provides for definition of the ‘management’, as follows : “2 (13) “management”, in relation to an affiliated or associated college, means the managing or other body charged with managing the affairs of that college and recognized as such by the University; Provided that in relation to any such college maintained by a Municipal Board or a Nagar Mahapalika, the expression Management, means the education committee of such Board or Mahapalika, as the case may be and the expression ‘Head of the Management’, means the Chairman of such committee.” 15. Shri Sinha submits that the management, related to affiliated and associated Colleges under the definition, means the management or other body charges with managing affairs of the College, and recognised as such by the University. Shri Sinha submits that the management, related to affiliated and associated Colleges under the definition, means the management or other body charges with managing affairs of the College, and recognised as such by the University. The twin requirement of a management namely a body charged with managing affairs of the College, and the recognition by the University, does not require renewal of recognition. He submits that Statute 13.34 made with reference to Section 49 (o) of the Act provides for the powers of the Vice-Chancellor to recognise the management of the College. In case of a dispute regarding the management the Vice-Chancellor has to find out as to which of the rival claimant is in actual possession and control of the College properties for the purposes of the Act after giving opportunity to the rival claimants. Statute 13.34 provides as follows : “13.34 Whenever there is a dispute regarding the management of an affiliated college, persons found by the Vice-Chancellor to be in actual possession and control of the college properties may, for purposes of the Act and these Statutes be recognised to constitute the Management of such college until a Court of competent jurisdiction orders otherwise : Provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall before making an order under this Statute, afford an opportunity to the rival claimants to make written representations.” 16. Shri Sinha submits that in the present case, there is no dispute that the Governing Body is in actual possession and control of the administration and properties of the College. It is in receipt of the income from the property of the institution, and is exercising all relevant powers under the Memorandum of the Society and the Act and Statutes. There is no dispute with regard to the membership of the Society and the Governing Body. The registration of the Society has been renewed by the Registrar of the Societies, U.P. on 18.2.2006 for a period of five years from 10.10.2005. There is no provision in the Act or in the Statutes for renewal of the recognition of the Committee of Management of the affiliated college. It is only if there is any dispute by a rival committee, that the question of the recognition of the Committee of Management, in actual possession and control of the College properties, may arise. There is no provision in the Act or in the Statutes for renewal of the recognition of the Committee of Management of the affiliated college. It is only if there is any dispute by a rival committee, that the question of the recognition of the Committee of Management, in actual possession and control of the College properties, may arise. The information given by the Registrar of the University, that the recognition dated 13.8.2002 was to expire on 9.10.2005, had no concern with the validity of the Governing Body/Committee of Management of the Christ Church College. There is no rival committee of management nor there is any dispute with regard to management of Christ Church College, Kanpur either raised to or pending at any stage. The letters written by the University for renewal of the recognition of the Committee of Management are wholly superfluous and in any case, they have no concern with the disciplinary action taken by the Governing Body of the College. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were drawing their salary on the salary bills submitted by the Governing Body as the Management of the College. They cannot turn around and say that the same Governing Body is not recognised or that its term has expired. 17. Shri Sinha has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court Jawahar Lal Nehru Degree College, Banda and another v. Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi and another, 1995 (1) LBESR 323 in which this Court held in para-13 that in so far as the teacher is concerned, he is admittedly drawing salary from the College on the authority of the same Committee of Management by the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with the law as between the Teacher and College it is the Committee of Management, which is drawing and is entitling the teachers for payment of salary. The teacher had recognised the Committee of Management for the purposes of continuing in the College. 18. Shri Umesh Narain Sharma, appearing for the Vice-Chancellor, submits that the management has been defined under Section 2 (13) of the Act. The management should not only be charged with managing the affairs of the College but should also be recognised by the University. 18. Shri Umesh Narain Sharma, appearing for the Vice-Chancellor, submits that the management has been defined under Section 2 (13) of the Act. The management should not only be charged with managing the affairs of the College but should also be recognised by the University. The University must have full and complete information with regard to the Constitution of the Committee of Management and the officers, who are required to perform statutory functions, and have to deal with the officers of the University. The recognition includes recognition of change of the Committee of Management. Where elections are provided to be held or any change in the Committee of Management takes place, the Management must require the University for renewal of recognition. In the present case, the Committee of Management of Christ Church College was recognised at its own request dated 9.10.2005 and thereafter the management did not give any information and submit any papers of fresh elections for the renewal of recognition as Society, and the change in the composition of the body of Committee of Management. The recognition had thus expired and thus the Committee of Management did not have authority to take action against the teachers of the College. He submits that the Vice-Chancellor has referred to the State Government for appointment of the authorised controller. 19. Shri Sharma has relied upon judgment in Nand Deo Pandey v. Committee of Management, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and others, (1991) 1 UPLBEC 549 (SC). In this judgment, the Supreme Court held that a teacher, against whom disciplinary action is proposed and the enquiry is pending, is certainly entitled to urge that the Committee, which is proceeding to enquire into his conduct, should be properly constituted Committee of Management. Since the issue was pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Director of Education, the Supreme Court directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Director of Education to proceed with the enquiry and complete the same within one month. Thereafter the Committee can be treated to be properly constituted Committee and will be at liberty to continue the proceedings of enquiry. 20. Shri Shashi Nandan, appearing for the respondent teachers, submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 68 of the Act to make a representation to the Chancellor. Thereafter the Committee can be treated to be properly constituted Committee and will be at liberty to continue the proceedings of enquiry. 20. Shri Shashi Nandan, appearing for the respondent teachers, submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 68 of the Act to make a representation to the Chancellor. The High Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a case where an alternative remedy is available before a statutory authority. He relies upon Dr. Manvendra Misra v. Gorakhpur University, 2000 (2) AWC 1028 . In this judgment the Division Bench of the High Court, relying upon Executive Engineer v. Ramesh Kumar, AIR 1996 SC 691 distinguished the judgment in Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal v. State of U.P., 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1055 and held that it is entirely a matter of discretion. Since the writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction, that where the alternative remedy is provided, the petitioner should ordinarily be relegated to the alternative remedy. 21. Replying to the objections to the maintainability of the writ petition on the alternative remedies of making a representation to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Act, Shri Navin Sinha submits that the alternative remedy is not absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition. He has referred to Popcorn Entertainment and another v. City Industrial Development Corporation and another, (2007) 9 SCC 593 . In this judgment the Supreme Court, relied upon its earlier judgments in Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, (1969) 3 SCC 769 ; Century Spg. and Mfg. Consolidation Officer. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, (1970) 1 SCC 582 ; Bal Krishna Agarwal (Dr.) v. State of U.P., (1995) 1 SCC 614 ; Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 ; Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107 ; Corpn. of the City of Bangalore v. Bangalore Stock Exchange, (2003) 10 SCC 212 ; ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553 and Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 242 and held that the writ petition would be maintainable if the action of the respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction; the principles of natural justice have been violated and if the appellant’s fundamental rights have been violated. 22. of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553 and Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 242 and held that the writ petition would be maintainable if the action of the respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction; the principles of natural justice have been violated and if the appellant’s fundamental rights have been violated. 22. Shri Sinha submits that in the present case the order of the Vice-Chancellor is entire illegal and without jurisdiction. The order also violates the fundamental rights of a minority institution under Article 30 (1) in Chapter III of the Constitution of India to establish and administer the educational institutions. The case does not require any investigation of facts and thus the High Court should not refuse to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Article 30 (1) gives fundamental right to the minorities whether based on religion or language to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This right, however, is not absolute but is subject to reasonable regulations. In Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose and others, (2007) 1 SCC 386 relying upon earlier decisions beginning from Kerala Education Bill, 1957, In re AIR 1958 SC 956 ; Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1963 SC 540 ; D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 269 ; All Saints High School v. Government of A.P., (1980) 2 SCC 478 ; St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi (1992) 1 SCC 558 ; N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School, (1998) 6 SCC 674 ; Board of Secondary Education & Teachers Training v. Jt. Director of Punjab Instructions, (1998) 8 SCC 555 and T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 , the Supreme Court reiterated and summarised the general principles relating to establishment and administration of minority educational institutions as follows : “19. Director of Punjab Instructions, (1998) 8 SCC 555 and T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 , the Supreme Court reiterated and summarised the general principles relating to establishment and administration of minority educational institutions as follows : “19. The general principles relating to establishment and administration of educational institution by minorities may be summarized thus : (i) The right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice comprises the following rights : (a) To choose its governing body in whom the founders of the institution have faith and confidence to conduct and manage the affairs of the institution; (b) To appoint teaching staff (Teachers/Lecturers and Head-masters/Principals) as also non-teaching staff; and to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any of its employees; (c) To admit eligible students of their choice and to set up a reasonable fee structure; (d) To use its properties and assets for the benefit of the institution; (ii) The right conferred on minorities under Article 30 is only to ensure equality with the majority and not intended to place the minorities in a more advantageous position vis-a-vis the majority. There is no reverse discrimination in favour of minorities. The general laws of the land relating to national interest, national security, social welfare, public order, morality, health, sanitation, taxation etc. applicable to all, will equally apply to minority institutions also. (iii) The right to establish and administer educational institutions is not absolute. Nor does it include the right to mal-administer. There can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational character and standards and maintaining academic excellence. There can be checks on administration as are necessary to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound, so as to serve the academic needs of the institution. Regulations made by the State concerning generally the welfare of students and teachers, regulations laying down eligibility criteria and qualifications for appointment, as also conditions of service of employees (both teaching and non-teaching), regulations to prevent exploitation or oppression of employees, and regulations prescribing syllabus and curriculum of study fall under this category. Such regulations do not in any manner interfere with the right under Article 30(1). (iv) Subject to the eligibility conditions/qualifications prescribed by the State being met, the unaided minority educational institutions will have the freedom to appoint teachers/Lecturers by adopting any rational procedure of selection. Such regulations do not in any manner interfere with the right under Article 30(1). (iv) Subject to the eligibility conditions/qualifications prescribed by the State being met, the unaided minority educational institutions will have the freedom to appoint teachers/Lecturers by adopting any rational procedure of selection. (v) Extension of aid by the State, does not alter the nature and character of the minority educational institution. Conditions can be imposed by the State to ensure proper utilization of the aid, without however diluting or abridging the right under Article 30(1).” 23. Keeping in view of the fundamental rights given to the minority institutions, Section 35 (2) of the UP State Universities Act, 1953 provides for a limited enquiry in the matter of approval of the orders of punishment passed by the Committee of Management of minority institutions. This enquiry is confined only to the satisfaction, that the procedure prescribed for holding enquiry has been followed. The Vice-Chancellor has a very limited discretion in the matter. Unless he is satisfied, that the procedure prescribed in the Statutes or in the Regulations for prescribing punishment has been followed, he will not enter into the other issue such as the validity of the Committee of Management, the nature of the charges, proportionality etc. In such cases, the Vice-Chancellor must remind himself that he has limited powers of approval and must allow the minority institutions to regulate its own administration and should be free to exercise the discretionary powers to regulate the conduct of the teachers. The word ‘recognition’ is defined in the law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar II Edn. Reprint 2007 (1627) to imply something more than acquiescence, something done by the Government as for instance by expeditious of service, Jodi etc. Mere collection of road cess is not recognition. Section 78 (4) of the Indian Evidence Act uses the word recognition to the proof of official documents and which means formal acknowledgement as conveying approval or sanction. 24. The object of the recognition of the management in relation to an affiliated or associated College under Section 2 (13) of the Act, is for the purposes of recognising a body, which is incharge and is managing the affairs of the College. 24. The object of the recognition of the management in relation to an affiliated or associated College under Section 2 (13) of the Act, is for the purposes of recognising a body, which is incharge and is managing the affairs of the College. The recognition of the management of affiliated or associated college is both for the purposes of the University dealing with the College and for carrying out all the statutory functions, referred to in the explanation of Statute 13.34 such as control over funds of the institution, actual administration, the receipt of the income from the property, etc. There is nothing in the Act or the Statutes to require a Committee of Management to seek renewal or re-affirmance of the recognition. It is only if a change takes place in the management, by which persons incharge of actual administration and control over the funds, are changed, that the management may be required to send an information to the University. No renewal or re-recognition is required in such matters. Statute 13.34 of the Statutes of the University made under Section 49 (O) of the Act provides for the powers of the Vice-Chancellor, in case of any dispute regarding management of an affiliated College. The power to recognise the management after the recognition is granted by the University, to a Committee of Management, and the decision of the Vice-Chancellor thereon, are limited to be performed, if there is a dispute regarding the management of the affiliated College that after affording opportunity to the rival claimants keeping in view of the explanation to the Statute. The Vice-Chancellor on his own cannot question the authority of the persons whom he has recognised to manage the affairs of the College, even if the composition of Committee of Management has undergone change. At best the Registrar may require them to furnish the names and addresses of the persons with whom the University has to deal with, and are required to discharge statutory functions. These powers are further restricted in case of institutions established and administered by minority enjoying fundamental rights under Section 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. The Vice-Chancellor has to be very slow and cautious in exercising the powers under Statute 13.34 in respect of disputes regarding the management of an affiliated College established and administered by a minority under Clause-1 to Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The Vice-Chancellor has to be very slow and cautious in exercising the powers under Statute 13.34 in respect of disputes regarding the management of an affiliated College established and administered by a minority under Clause-1 to Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The Vice-Chancellor must give due respect to fundamental rights guaranteed to such institutions. 25. In the present case, we asked the counsel appearing for the University repeatedly whether there is any dispute with regard to the management of Christ Church College, Kanpur. Shri U.N. Sharma assisted by Shri Neeraj Tiwari has not brought on record any rival claim or any objection to the competence of the persons managing the affairs of the College. 26. In the present case, the Memorandum of the Christ Church College, Society provides the Bishop of Diocese or his duly appointed Commissary or their nominee to be the ex-officio Chairman, and the Principal of the College to be the ex-officio Secretary of the Society. There is no dispute raised by the respondents that the Chairman and the Secretary of the Governing Body are not available or any question has been raised to their authority to manage the affairs of the College. Further para-8 and 13 of the Memorandum of the Christ Church College Society clearly provide that no act of the Governing Body shall be invalidated by reason of any defect in composition or membership of the Governing Body and that all acts done by the Governing Body shall be valid, even if there is any vacancy, disqualification or defect in appointment of any member of the Governing Body or the Committee or the Sub-Committee as the case may be. 27. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the UP State Universities Act, 1973 and the Statutes framed thereunder do not require renewal or re-affirmance of the recognition of the affiliated Colleges. The information given by the affiliated Colleges in respect of the change in the composition of the Committee of Management is sufficient, unless there is any dispute in which case the power given to the Vice-Chancellor under Statute 13.34 have to be exercised in accordance with the conditions given thereunder. The Vice-Chancellor clearly misdirected himself in proceeding to enquiry into the allegations and validity of the Committee of Management, on the ground that its recognition had expired. The Vice-Chancellor clearly misdirected himself in proceeding to enquiry into the allegations and validity of the Committee of Management, on the ground that its recognition had expired. The University, unlike the powers given to the educational authorities in the UP Intermediate Education Act, has no authority to question the recognition, once it is granted or to get the recognition renewed, on every elections or change in the composition of the Committee of Management of the Society unless there is a dispute and there is a rival claimant to the management. 28. On the aforesaid opinion, we are of the view that the Vice-Chancellor has not only acted illegally and has erred in exercise of his statutory powers in refusing to exercise his powers under Section 35 (2) of the UP State Universities Act, 1973, but that he has also violated the fundamental rights of the Christ Church College Society, Kanpur, a Christian Minority Society, to establish and administer the educational institution guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. 29. The petitioners have made out the grounds taken in the writ petition and have established that the present case is an exception to the general rule of relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedies provided under the Act. 30. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Vice-Chancellor, Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur dated 22.3.2010 is set aside. The order shall not be given effect to. The Vice-Chancellor will reconsider the report of the Governing Body of the Christ Church College, Kanpur vide its proposal dated 25.2.2010 along with material produced therewith for approval of the termination order strictly in accordance with the powers vested in him under Section 35 (2) of the UP State Universities Act, 1973. He will consider the matter afresh in accordance with the observations and directions made by us preferably within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. ————