JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—Writ Petition No. 12893 of 2010 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Bipin Bihari Mahavidyalaya, Jhansi and Pramod Kumar Gupta claiming himself to be its Manager for quashing the order dated 1st December, 2009 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) by which, pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 8th September, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 47900 of 2009 to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to pass an appropriate order on the papers submitted before him for grant of recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution, the Vice-Chancellor has ordered that an appropriate order for granting recognition shall be passed after the enquiry initiated by the State Government against the Committee of Management of the Institution is completed and an order is passed by the State Government in the matter. 2. Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2010 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Bipin Bihari Mahavidyalaya, Jhansi and Pramod Kumar Gupta claiming himself to be its Manager for quashing the orders dated 7th August, 2009 and 8th September, 2009 passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer, Chitrakoot Region, Jhansi and for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in the smooth functioning of the Committee of Management of the Institution. 3. It is stated in Writ Petition No. 12893 of 2010 that Bipin Bihari College Society (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Society’) is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said Society established a Degree College by the name of Bipin Bihari Mahavidyalaya, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institution’) which is affiliated to the University. In the election of the Committee of Management held on 8th June, 2007, Ram Ratan Agarwal was elected as the President and Pramod Kumar Gupta was elected as the Secretary/Manager. Papers relating to the elections were sent to the respective authorities. In the election of the Committee of Management held on 8th June, 2007, Ram Ratan Agarwal was elected as the President and Pramod Kumar Gupta was elected as the Secretary/Manager. Papers relating to the elections were sent to the respective authorities. The lists of office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Institution for the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 were registered by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Assistant Registrar’), but the Vice-Chancellor of the University did not pass any order for granting recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution under Section 2(13) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Writ Petition No. 47900 of 2009 was, therefore, filed by the petitioners which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 8th September, 2009 with the following observations : “This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the Vice-Chancellor of the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) to grant recognition to the petitioner-Committee of Management. It is the contention of Sri Gautam Baghel learned counsel for the petitioners that the elections of the Committee of Management were held on 8th June, 2007 and thereafter the petitioners sent the papers to the Vice-Chancellor of the University for passing an appropriate order under Section 2(13) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 for granting recognition to the elections but till date no orders have been passed. Sri Neeraj Tiwari learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University states that the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall examine the papers and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to examine the papers filed by the petitioners and pass an appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioners before the Vice-Chancellor of the University after hearing the parties concerned, if there be any.” 4. It is as a consequence of the aforesaid order that the Vice-Chancellor of the University passed the order dated 1st December, 2009 which has been impugned in Writ Petition No. 12893 of 2010. 5. It is as a consequence of the aforesaid order that the Vice-Chancellor of the University passed the order dated 1st December, 2009 which has been impugned in Writ Petition No. 12893 of 2010. 5. In the aforesaid order dated 1st December, 2009, the Vice-Chancellor of the University has made the following observations : i. The election of the Committee of Management was held on 8th June, 2007 and papers were submitted before the University for grant of recognition on 17th March, 2008. ii. In the reply submitted by the Institution, it has been stated that with regard to the points raised by the University in respect of the complaint made by the teachers of the Institution, the State Government was already holding an enquiry and the Regional Higher Education Officer had also ceased the financial and administrative powers of the present Committee of Management of the Institution. iii. In this regard, the University made queries from the Regional Higher Education Officer who pointed out that upon receipt of the complaint against the Committee of Management of the Institution, the Joint Secretary to the State Government sent the letter dated 28th August, 2009 directing the Director, Higher Education to hold an enquiry. The Director, Higher Education by the order dated 15th September, 2009 appointed Ram Chandra, Accounts Officer for holding an enquiry. The Director, Higher Education had also passed an order on 10th August, 2009 for single operation of the account of the Institution. The Regional Higher Education Officer had also passed an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the Committee of Management of the Institution and enquiry against the Committee of Management is pending. iv. It is, therefore, clear that the charges levelled against the Committee of Management of the Institution are of serious nature and the State Government is holding an enquiry. In such circumstances, the decision to grant recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution should be postponed and an appropriate order will be passed after a decision is taken by the State Government on the enquiry. 6. In Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2010, it is stated that in the annual audit done by the Local Funds Auditors, Jhansi, an objection was raised on 30th June, 2009 with regard to the excess amount of salary paid to 40 teachers and employees of the Institution. 6. In Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2010, it is stated that in the annual audit done by the Local Funds Auditors, Jhansi, an objection was raised on 30th June, 2009 with regard to the excess amount of salary paid to 40 teachers and employees of the Institution. The Committee of Management of the Institution, therefore, issued notices on 31st July, 2009 to such teachers and employees for recovery of the excess amount paid to them and also informed the Regional Higher Education Officer about this decision by the letter dated 12th October, 2009. It is alleged that as a result of the issuance of these notices, the teachers made a complaint to the Commissioner of the Division against the Committee of Management and the Commissioner directed the Regional Higher Education Officer on 7th August, 2009 to hold an enquiry and submit a report. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by the Commissioner on 7th August, 2009, the Regional Higher Education Officer on the same date not only constituted a Committee of three persons so that the report could be submitted to the Commissioner but he further directed that till the enquiry is completed, the financial and administrative powers of the Committee of Management of the Institution shall be ceased. By a separate order dated 8th September, 2009, the Regional Higher Education Officer directed the Branch Manager of the Bank not to permit the Committee of Management of the Institution to operate the account. These two orders dated 7th August, 2009 and 8th September, 2009 passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer have been impugned in Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2010. 7. In both the writ petitions, impleadment applications have been filed for impleading Dr. D.P. Mishra (Reader and Head of the Department of Biology and the President of the Teachers Association of the Institution) and Dr. Anil Kumar (Reader in the Department of Chemistry and the Secretary of the Teachers Association) as respondents in the writ petitions. These applications were allowed by the order dated 16th April, 2010. 8. Sri Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respondents had stated that since detailed facts have been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment applications, it will not be necessary to file a counter-affidavit and the petition can be decided. 9. These applications were allowed by the order dated 16th April, 2010. 8. Sri Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respondents had stated that since detailed facts have been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment applications, it will not be necessary to file a counter-affidavit and the petition can be decided. 9. In Writ Petition No. 12893 of 2010, a statement was also made by learned counsel for the respondents that it will not be necessary to file any counter-affidavit since counter-affidavits have been filed by the State respondents and the University in the connected Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2010. 10. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State in Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2010, the main averments are as follows : “3-h. That from the aforesaid order of Vice-Chancellor Bundelkhand, University, it is clear that petitioner’s Committee of Management is although allegedly elected in June 2007 but not recognized/approved by the Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, as yet. ................................ 3-k. That it is also pertinent to submit that although petitioner’s Committee of Management is not recognized, it was illegally acting as recognized Committee of Management of the college and discharging administrative as well as financial activities and in doing so several complaints of financial irregularities and illegal extraction of money from the students and harassment of the college staff members, were made by none other than Association of college teachers itself. Taking cognizance of the serious nature of complaints the Commissioner requested the respondent No. 4 to enquire into the complaints. Accordingly, the Regional Higher Education Officer, who is fully empowered to do so under G.O. Dated 22.8.1994, instituted a three member enquiry Committee headed by himself. Thus, vide order dated 7.8.2009, in order to prevent any further damage to the college property by an unauthorised body i.e. petitioner’s alleged Committee of Management, prohibited the petitioner and office bearers of the petitioner’s alleged Committee of Management to discharge any financial or administrative function which is fully justified, and in the interest of the institution as well as students. The photocopy of complaint dated 11.9.2009 of Teachers Association and G.O. Dated 22.8.1994 is being annexed as Annexure Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. The photocopy of complaint dated 11.9.2009 of Teachers Association and G.O. Dated 22.8.1994 is being annexed as Annexure Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. 3-l. That it is also submitted that during the alleged election of petitioner’s Committee of Management (i.e. June 2007), the registration of its parent Society (Bipin Bihari College Society) had already expired in the year 2005 itself and renewed only in March 2008. Thus, the alleged election of petitioner’s Committee of Management in June 2007 under the bye laws of the expired Society is wholly illegal, and irrelevant. The photocopy of renewal certificate of the parent Society is being annexed as Annexure No. 6. 3-m. That it is also pertinent to submit that the Firms Societies and Chits, Jhansi, in its audit inquiry report has revealed several financial irregularities of serious nature. The photocopy of report dated 9.9.2009 is being annexed as Annexure No. 7. 3-n. That in view of the fact that petitioner’s committee is still unregistered and not a valid “management” under the provisions of Section 2(13) of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973, and petitioner’s involvement in several financial irregularities including taking donations from the students which is fully prohibited under Section 46 of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973, (for which a F.I.R. has already been filed against the petitioner) the restriction on administration and financial activities of the petitioner’s alleged Committee of Management not only during the enquiry proceeding is a must but it should be continued till the date of grant of ‘recognition’ by the Vice-Chancellor. The photocopy of Receipt and Payment account of the college for the year 1999-2000, 2000-01 and F.I.R charge-sheet are being annexed as Annexure No. 8.” In the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application, the following main averments have been made : “9. That even in the election held on 8.6.2007 approval was refused on 18.6.2009 and aggrieved by this, petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Court being Writ Petition No. 47900 of 2009 and succeeded in getting direction to the Vice-Chancellor to decide the representation and pending recognition. The Vice-Chancellor finally passed the order on 1.12.2009 and refused to provide recognition due to pendency of enquiry against the Committee of Management. The copy of the decision of Vice Chancellor dated 1.12.2009 confirming the fact is hereby enclosed and marked as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. 10. The Vice-Chancellor finally passed the order on 1.12.2009 and refused to provide recognition due to pendency of enquiry against the Committee of Management. The copy of the decision of Vice Chancellor dated 1.12.2009 confirming the fact is hereby enclosed and marked as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. 10. That apart from the above since petitioner concealed the material fact and did not disclosed the Hon’ble Court the reason why the enquiry has been initiated for huge financial bungling and mismanagement and irreparable loss to the institution, proposed respondents decided to file present impleadment application and in order to communicate in charge the proceeding completed or pending in reference to financial irregularities are given as follows : A. That the first complaint moved by the proposed respondents was before his Excellency the Governor of U.P. i.e. Chancellor on 11.9.2009. Copy of the complaint was also given to other authorities. In that reference a show-cause notice was issued to Principal and management on 17.9.2009 and a copy was also sent by the State Government to applicant and the applicant submitted point wise reply on 18.9.2009. In this matter enquiry was conducted by Joint Director of Higher Education and Finance & Accounts Officer and proposed respondents submitted their reply point wise on 18.9.2009. Copy of show-cause issued from the enquiry officer dated 17.9.2009 and reply given by the proposed respondents on 18.9.2009 are hereby enclosed and marked as Annexure 4 & 4A to the affidavit. However, the entire enquiry was conducted and report submitted by the Joint Director of Higher Education and Finance & Accounts Officer to the State Government which is pending for consideration. B. That the Second enquiry was a matter of fact initiated by the District Magistrate on the basis of complaint dated 7.8.2009 moved by the applicant. District Magistrate appointed Additional District Magistrate to hold enquiry who issued notice on 12.8.2009 to the applicants and further a notice was also issued to alleged committee of management. Here it is necessary to mention that no reply was given by the Committee of Management, however, applicant submitted point wise reply and District Magistrate submitted report to the Principal Secretary (Higher Education), State of U.P. on 8.1.2010. The final report submitted by the District Magistrate is pending consideration before the State Government. In the representation made by Teachers Association, 32 teachers out of total number 39 signed the representation dated 26.8.2009. The final report submitted by the District Magistrate is pending consideration before the State Government. In the representation made by Teachers Association, 32 teachers out of total number 39 signed the representation dated 26.8.2009. Copy of the show-cause notice dated 12.8.2009 and representation dated 26.8.2009 are hereby enclosed and marked as Annexure 5 & 5A to the affidavit. C. That the proceeding was initiated against the Committee of Management on behalf of the Commissioner to whom the complaint was moved on 7.8.2009 itself. Commissioner issued letter on 7.8.2009 addressed to Regional Higher Education officer for holding enquiry for financial embezzlement manipulation and misappropriation of account of college. Copy of letter of Commissioner dated 7.8.2009 confirming the fact is hereby enclosed and marked as Annexure 6 to the affidavit. It is only on the basis of this enquiry the account of management was ceased on 8.9.2009. ..................... 23. That so far as issue raised in the writ petition in regard to recovery from teacher is concerned, it is necessary to mention here that the appointments were made by the Committee of Management by valid resolution and they have been paid honorarium by Committee of Management after their valid resolution. So far the appointment made to teacher is concerned, it is the Committee of Management which is responsible apart from above the issue has been finally decided and recovery against the teachers were dropped by the Assistant Director which was communicated to Manager and the Principal by letter dated 3.2.2010. Audit objection raised against the payment made to teachers were finally disposed of, at the moment no recovery is required to be made from the teachers. Copy of the decision of Assistant Director dated 3.2.2010 is hereby enclosed and marked as Annexure 15 to the affidavit. .......... 27. That apart from this, there is apparent illegality as petitioner Committee of Management showed election on 8.6.2007 but the society itself was unregistered from the year 1998. As per Section 3(a)(v), if the renewal of the society remains pending for more than one year, it becomes unregistered to that extent even if the renewal of the society done on 10.3.2008 would make no difference as no registered society was existing on that date.” 11. As per Section 3(a)(v), if the renewal of the society remains pending for more than one year, it becomes unregistered to that extent even if the renewal of the society done on 10.3.2008 would make no difference as no registered society was existing on that date.” 11. Apart from the aforesaid averments, it has also been stated that the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi organised audit on 4th May, 2007 and 13th September, 2007 and found serious financial irregularities. Reference has also been made to other financial irregularities said to have been committed by the Committee of Management of the Institution. 12. Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners made the following submissions : 1. In view of the audit objection dated 30th June, 2009 regarding the excess payment of Rs.12,08,090/- to the 27 teachers and 14 non-teaching staff of the Institution, the Committee of Management, in its meeting held on 31st July, 2009, took a decision for recovery of the excess amount and it is as a consequence of the said decision taken by the Committee of Management that the false complaint was filed by the teachers before the Commissioner of the Jhansi Division, who on 7th August, 2009 directed the Regional Higher Education Officer to hold an enquiry and inform him about the result and a consequence of the said direction, the Regional Higher Education Officer on the same date constituted a Committee of three persons to hold an enquiry and also directed that till the enquiry is completed, the financial and administrative powers of the Committee of Management of the Institution shall be ceased. It is his submission that the Commissioner of the Division has no authority under the provisions of the Act or the Statutes framed thereunder to direct the Regional Higher Education Officer to hold an enquiry and nor does the Regional Higher Education Officer have any jurisdiction to pass an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the Committee of Management of the Institution. He, therefore, submits that the orders dated 7th August, 2009 and 8th September, 2009 passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer deserve to be set aside. 2. In the alternative, the orders passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer deserve to be set aside as they have been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioners. 3. He, therefore, submits that the orders dated 7th August, 2009 and 8th September, 2009 passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer deserve to be set aside. 2. In the alternative, the orders passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer deserve to be set aside as they have been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioners. 3. It is also his submission that the Vice-Chancellor of the University was not justified in postponing the decision for granting recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution under Section 2(13) of the Act merely on the ground that some enquiry against the Committee of Management was pending before the State Government or the Regional Higher Education Officer, particularly when directions had been issued by the Court on 8th September, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 47900 of 2009 to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to pass an appropriate order on the papers submitted by the petitioner-Committee of Management of the Institution with regard to grant of recognition. Accordingly to the learned Senior Counsel, the Vice-Chancellor of the University was merely required to examine whether the elections of the Committee of Management were validly held on 8th June, 2007 since no parallel Committee of Management had claimed election, particularly when the Assistant Registrar had also registered the list of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society on the basis of the election held on 8th June, 2007. 13. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the Regional Higher Education Officer, was justified in passing the orders dated 7th August, 2009 and 8th September, 2009 in view of the provisions of Section 40 of the Act as also the Government Order dated 22nd August, 1994. 14. Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondents has made the following submissions : 1. The orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University and the Regional Higher Education Officer are justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and do not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Though the University had refused to grant recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution by the order dated 18th June, 2009, yet without challenging the said order, Writ Petition No. 47900 of 2009 was filed and even in Writ Petition No. 12893 of 2010 there is no challenge of the said order. 3. 2. Though the University had refused to grant recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution by the order dated 18th June, 2009, yet without challenging the said order, Writ Petition No. 47900 of 2009 was filed and even in Writ Petition No. 12893 of 2010 there is no challenge of the said order. 3. In view of the serious charges of financial irregularities against the Committee of Management of the Institution in respect of which enquiries are pending before the State Government and the Regional Higher Education Officer, the Vice-Chancellor of the University was justified in postponing the decision with regard to the grant of recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution. 4. Regarding the notice issued by the Committee of Management of the Institution to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Institution for recovery of Rs.12,08,090/-, the Assistant Director of Education had dropped the recovery and informed the Manager/Principal of the Institution of this fact by the letter dated 3rd February, 2010. 5. At the time the elections were held on 8th June, 2007, the Society was not registered and the registration of the Society was renewed only on 10th March, 2008 w.e.f. 10th October, 2005 for a period of five years. 15. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 16. The main reason given by the Vice-Chancellor of the University in the impugned order dated 1st December, 2009 for postponing the decision on the grant of recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution under Section 2(13) of the Act is that on the complaint made by the teachers of the Institution, the State Government as well as the Regional Higher Education Officer had constituted an enquiry and so an appropriate order can be passed only after the State Government takes a decision in the matter. 17. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State in Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2010, there is no mention of any enquiry pending with the State Government against the Committee of Management of the Institution. 17. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State in Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2010, there is no mention of any enquiry pending with the State Government against the Committee of Management of the Institution. However, in the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application, it has been stated that a complaint dated 11th September, 2009 was submitted by the applicants before the Chancellor of the University and in that connection the State Government directed the Finance and Accounts Officer in the Office of Director of Higher Education, Allahabad to conduct an enquiry who issued a show-cause notice dated 17th September, 2009 to the Manager/Principal of the Institution. A report was thereafter submitted by the Joint Director of Higher Education and the Finance and Accounts Officer to the State Government which is still pending consideration. Reference has also been made by the Vice-Chancellor of the University to the order passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer on 7th August, 2009 ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the Committee of Management of the Institution. 18. In this connection, it needs to be noticed that after the Committee of Management of the Institution had resolved to make recovery of the excess amount of Rs.12,08,090/- paid to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Institution on the basis of the audit objection, the teachers filed a complaint before the Commissioner of the Jhansi Division against the Committee of Management of the Institution. It is on this complaint of the teachers that the Commissioner of the Jhansi Division, by the order dated 7th August, 2009, directed the Regional Higher Education Officer to hold an enquiry and submit his report and in view of this order, the Regional Higher Education Officer on the same date, i.e., 7th August, 2009 not only constituted a Committee for holding an enquiry against the Committee of Management of the Institution but also passed an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the Committee of Management of the Institution. 19. 19. It is the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that neither the Commissioner of the Division nor the Regional Higher Education Officer have any jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act or the Statutes to hold an enquiry into the affairs of the Committee of Management of the Institution and, therefore, the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Regional Higher Education Officer are without jurisdiction. 20. Learned counsel for the respondents have supported the orders passed by the Commissioner of the Division and the Regional Higher Education Officer on the basis of the provisions of Section 40 of the Act and the Government Order dated 22nd August, 1994. 21. Section 40 of the Act deals with inspection of Affiliated and Associated Colleges. It provides that the State Government shall have the right to cause an inspection to be made of any affiliated college and shall communicate to the Manager the result of such inspection or enquiry and may issue direction to the Management to forthwith comply with such directions and inform the Vice-Chancellor of the University about the communication made by it to the Management what. 22. The Government Order dated 22nd August, 1994 provides what administrative and financial powers have to be exercised by the Regional Higher Education Officer. 23. There is nothing in Section 40 of the Act or the Government Order dated 22nd August, 1994 which authorizes the Regional Higher Education Officer to pass an order ceasing the financial and administrative powers of the Committee of Management of the Institution and indeed, the learned Standing Counsel or learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondents have not been able to place any such provision. Infact, it is under Sections 57 and 58 of the Act that the State Government can issue show-cause notice as to why an Authorised Controller may not be appointed in the Institution. 24. In such circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the orders dated 7th August, 2009 and 8th September, 2009 passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer. 25. The Vice-Chancellor of the University has postponed taking the decision on grant of recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution under Section 2(13) of the Act merely on the ground that enquiry is pending before the State Government. 25. The Vice-Chancellor of the University has postponed taking the decision on grant of recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution under Section 2(13) of the Act merely on the ground that enquiry is pending before the State Government. Mere pendency of the enquiry before the State Government cannot be made a ground for postponing the decision regarding grant of recognition to the Committee of Management of the Institution as the Vice-Chancellor of the University has to examine whether the elections were validly held and the Committee of Management of the Institution was validly constituted. Ultimately, the State Government satisfied that the Committee of Management has committed default, action in accordance with law can be taken. 26. The order dated 1st December, 2009 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, therefore, cannot also be sustained. 27. The submission made by Sri Shailendra regarding the order dated 18th June, 2009 passed by the Vice-Chancellor on the papers submitted by the petitioners for grant of recognition cannot be accepted as perusal of the said order shows that the Vice-Chancellor had refused to consider the grant of recognition because of the lack of information about the issues mentioned in the order. 28. The submission that recognition cannot be granted since the Society was not registered at the time the election was held on 8th June, 2007 cannot also be accepted. It needs to be mentioned that the registration of the Society was renewed on 10th March, 2008 with effect from 10th October, 2005 for a period of five years and in any case, the election of the Committee of Management cannot be said to be illegal even if the Society was not registered at the relevant time. 29. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2010 is allowed and the orders dated 7th August, 2009 and 8th September, 2009 passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer are set aside. 30. Writ Petition No. 12893 of 2010 is also allowed. 29. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2010 is allowed and the orders dated 7th August, 2009 and 8th September, 2009 passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer are set aside. 30. Writ Petition No. 12893 of 2010 is also allowed. The order dated 1st December, 2009 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University is set aside and the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall now pass an appropriate order in the light of the observations made above on the papers submitted by the Committee of Management of the Institution for grant of recognition under Section 2(13) of the Act expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by the petitioners before the Vice-Chancellor of the University. ————