ORDER The present writ petition has been filed by one Shailendra Kumar, Advocate. It has been contended that the matter has come up for admission. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that a direction be issued to Respondent no.1 to produce the result of any enquiry conducted or copy of order passed on the statutory petition of the petitioner filed before the respondent no.1 vide Annexure-2. On query by this Court, petitioner’s counsel could not produce any provision under the University Act under which a statutory petition can be filed. In absence of any provision under the University Act, we are of the opinion that the petition under Annexure-2 cannot be termed as statutory nature. We also got occasion to go through the Annexure-2, i.e., representation made to His Excellency, Governor of Bihar-cum-The Hon’ble Chancellor Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna. Para-2 of the representation reads as follows:– “Having come to know about some disturbing and glaring instances of illegal acts and actions at the instance and behest of Prof. Dr. R.P. Srivastava, the Vice-Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura, amounting to financial depredation of the funds of the University, which is provided by UGC and the Government of Bihar, which clearly constitute valid grounds for his removal from the post of Vice-Chancellor of the said University after getting enquiry conducted as provided under Section 11 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act).” 2. However, on perusal of the representation it is found that there was no documentary evidence available to support the allegations made in the representation. The rest of the allegation made was with respect to violation of the orders of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeals no.6098 of 1997 which deals with regularization of the employees of the University in pursuance of the Agrawal Commission. But, however, has submitted that the matter was disposed of by Agrawal Commission. A supplementary affidavit containing documentary evidence has been filed with this petition. But in support of the allegation made in para-2 of Annexure-2, we are of the opinion that no material is available to come to the conclusion. So far other allegations in para-3 are concerned, we have no hesitation to say that those are also remained disproved in absence of materials against them. 3. But in support of the allegation made in para-2 of Annexure-2, we are of the opinion that no material is available to come to the conclusion. So far other allegations in para-3 are concerned, we have no hesitation to say that those are also remained disproved in absence of materials against them. 3. Under the above circumstances, we do not find that there is a need to interfere. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.