JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—Sri Gangaram Bankey Lal Mahavidyalaya, Harsingpur, District Jalaun (hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’) and its Manager have filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 5th September, 2009 passed by the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) by which the affiliation granted to the College by the University has been withdrawn under the provisions of Section 37(8) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. It transpires from the record that the College was granted affiliation by the University for B.A. and B.Sc. classes. Government Orders dated 16th August, 2004 and 11th August, 2006 were issued for the benefit of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students and also certain sections of general category students. It provided that no fee shall be deposited by the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other category candidates whose family annual income was less than Rs. 1 lac. Certain complaints were made to the District Magistrate regarding the collection of fees from such candidates and the District Magistrate directed the District Inspector of Schools to enquire whether the funds made available by the Social Welfare Department for the welfare of such students were properly utilised by the College. The District Inspector of Schools submitted a report that the College did not produce any evidence to show that it had not collected fees from such students though it had received the amount from the Social Welfare Department for reimbursement. The District Magistrate, therefore, informed the Social Welfare Department which submitted the report to the Higher Education Department. It is on the basis of the aforesaid report submitted by the District Magistrate that the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. sent a communication dated 7th August, 2009 to the Registrar of the University asking the University to take appropriate action under Section 37(8) of the Act. The Executive Council of the University thereafter met on 26th August, 2009 and decided to withdraw the affiliation granted to the College and this decision was communicated to the College by the University by the letter dated 5th September, 2009. It is this order dated 5th September, 2009 that has been impugned in the present petition. 3. The Executive Council of the University thereafter met on 26th August, 2009 and decided to withdraw the affiliation granted to the College and this decision was communicated to the College by the University by the letter dated 5th September, 2009. It is this order dated 5th September, 2009 that has been impugned in the present petition. 3. Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the University is contrary to the provisions of Section 37(8) of the Act inasmuch as the Executive Council of the University could have passed an order only after obtaining the report of the Management of the College and with the previous sanction of the State Government. It is his submission that the Executive Council of the University decided to withdraw the affiliation merely on the basis of the communication dated 7th August, 2009 sent by the State Government to the University without seeking any report from the Management or obtaining previous sanction of the State Government as is required under Section 37(8) of the Act. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State authorities has submitted that after receiving the report from the District Magistrate, the State Government had merely asked the University to take appropriate action against the College in accordance with the provisions of Section 37(8) of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University has, however, submitted that notice dated 25th November, 2008 had earlier been issued by the University regarding mis-utilisation of the amount received by the College from the Social Welfare Department and, therefore, it cannot be said that the University had not given opportunity to the petitioner-College before passing the order under Section 37(8) of the Act. It is also his submission that the District Inspector of Schools had conducted a detailed enquiry and it is on the basis of this report that the State Government directed the University to pass an order under Section 37(8) of the Act. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is also his submission that the District Inspector of Schools had conducted a detailed enquiry and it is on the basis of this report that the State Government directed the University to pass an order under Section 37(8) of the Act. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate to first reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 37 of the Act which deals with affiliation and recognition and the same are as follows : “37(8) The privileges of affiliation of a college which fails to comply with any direction of the Executive Council under sub-section (7) or to fulfil the conditions of affiliation may, after obtaining a report from the Management of the college and with the previous sanction of the State Government, be withdrawn or curtailed by the Executive Council in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes. (9) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2) and (8), if the Management of an affiliated college has failed to fulfil the conditions of affiliation, the State Government may, after obtaining a report from the Management and the Vice-Chancellor, withdraw or curtail the privileges of affiliation.” 7. In the present case, as the records indicate, the District Inspector of Schools submitted a report against the petitioner-College to the District Magistrate which was forwarded to the State Government and it is on the basis of the report submitted by the District Inspector of Schools that the State Government directed the University, by the order dated 7th August, 2009, to take appropriate action against the College under Section 37(8) of the Act. 8. The Executive Council of the University was, therefore, required to proceed strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 37(8) of the Act. A perusal of sub-section (8) of Section 37 of the Act shows that in case the Executive Council comes to the conclusion that the College has failed to fulfil the conditions of affiliation, it has to obtain a report from the Management of the College and, thereafter, with the previous sanction of the State Government, affiliation can be withdrawn. 9. A perusal of sub-section (8) of Section 37 of the Act shows that in case the Executive Council comes to the conclusion that the College has failed to fulfil the conditions of affiliation, it has to obtain a report from the Management of the College and, thereafter, with the previous sanction of the State Government, affiliation can be withdrawn. 9. In the present case, the Executive Council of the University without obtaining any report from the Management of the College has withdrawn the affiliation merely on the basis of the communication dated 7th August, 2009 sent by the State Government. If the State Government was to take action, it could have done so under Section 37(9) of the Act, but it did not do so, and merely directed the University to take action in accordance with the provisions of Section 37(8) of the Act. At no point of time the University obtained any report from the Management of the College and nor did it seek any previous sanction of the State Government for withdrawing the affiliation. 10. The contention of Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University is that the University had earlier issued the notice dated 25th November, 2008 to the College. Action has not been taken by the University against the College on the basis of this show-cause notice and indeed even the order dated 5th September, 2009 does not indicate that action has been taken on the basis of the said notice. In fact action has been taken by the Executive Council of the University merely on the basis of the communication dated 7th August, 2009 sent by the State Government. 11. In such circumstances, the order dated 5th September, 2009 passed by the University cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside. This order, however, shall not prevent the University from taking action against the petitioner-College in accordance with the provisions of Section 37(8) of the Act. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. ————