Hon’ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—This writ petition has been filed assailing the order of the State Government dated 21.9.2010 whereby the Committee of Management of the petitioner? institution has been superseded and an Authorized Controller has been appointed in exercise of powers under Section 58 (1) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. 2. Sri A.K. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order proceeds on erroneous assumptions of fact , erroneous assumptions of law and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 9.12.2009 has already been set aside by the Chancellor on 21.4.2010 and in spite of the said fact being in the notice of the State Government, the impugned order has been passed without referring to the same. It is, therefore, submitted that the order assumes a fact which is not in existence. Sri Malviya further submits that had the State Government put the petitioner to any notice, the same could have been explained and mere pendency of the dispute relating to the Management before the Vice-Chancellor under the order dated 21.4.2010 would not entitle the State Government to pass the impugned order. He further contended that the allegations of misappropriation are absolutely vague, unfounded and the petitioner was never put to notice about any such charge relating to the allegations of financial embezzlement. 3. In response, the learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the State Government, contends that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and the State Government can be called upon to pass a fresh order in the event the Court accepts the submissions on behalf of the petitioner. 4. At this stage, Sri P.N. Saxena and learned counsel for the Caveator Sudhir Kumar Bajpai submits that the dispute with regard to rival claim, which is pending before the Vice-Chancellor, is at the instance of the Caveator and, therefore, the Caveator being a proper and necessary party deserves to be heard in opposition since there is a dispute of rival Committee, the State Government was fully justified in proceeding to take action under Section 57 read with Section 58 of the 1973 Act. He submits that a satisfaction has been recorded that there is every likelihood of a financial irregularity being committed in future and, therefore, the State Government, upon such satisfaction and due to the pendency of the rival claim, was justified in passing of the order under Section 58 of the Act. He, therefore, contends that so long as the Vice-Chancellor does not decide the dispute, a Committee represented by the petitioner cannot be allowed to function so as to perpetuate any future illegalities . He, therefore, submits that the appointment of the Authorized Controller is justified. 5. It is to be noted that the writ petition was filed on 29.9.2010 and the Caveat had been reported. The Authorized Controller has filed an Impleadment Application which has been disposed of by a separate order today itself. The Caveator did not file any application for impleadment. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Caveator was the complainant before the State Government or the impugned order was passed at his instance. In such a situation, the petition cannot be thrown out on the ground of non-impleadment of any proper or necessary party. If the Caveator proposes to contest the matter, he could have filed an application for impleadment disclosing his locus to contest the petition which has not been done. In spite of this, Sri P.N. Saxena has been heard in view of the provisions of Chapter XXII Rule 5-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules. Any person, who has set up a claim before the Vice-Chancellor that he or she is the Manager or entitled to claim any right over the management and affairs of the institution could have filed an impleadment application but the same has not been done. Sri Saxena has been unable to point out the status and capacity of the Caveator Sri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai. Nonetheless he has been heard at length. 6. Sri P.N. Saxena submits that all the ingredients of Section 57 of the 1973 Act are available and in the wake of rival dispute pending including charges of misappropriation, the impugned order is justified. Sri Saxena further submits that so long as the Vice-Chancellor does not decide the matter, the petitioner Committee should not be allowed to avail any advantage and the Authorized Controller deserves to function as there would be a vacuum in the institution. 7. Sri Saxena further submits that so long as the Vice-Chancellor does not decide the matter, the petitioner Committee should not be allowed to avail any advantage and the Authorized Controller deserves to function as there would be a vacuum in the institution. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, the impugned order has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 58 of the 1972 Act. The same proceeds on an assumption of disapproval of the Committee of Management vide order dated 9.12.2009 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the concerned University. The said order has already been set aside as noticed above by the Chancellor on 21.4.2010. The Vice-Chancellor has not decided the matter till today. After a lapse of 5 months of passing of the order of the Chancellor, the State Government proceeds to assume the existence of an order which has already been set aside. In the opinion of the Court, the order impugned proceeds on a non-existent fact and is, therefore, erroneous and is even mala fide. 8. The question of superseding the Committee of Management would arise only after action is proposed to be taken on the basis of the alleged existence of the dispute. For this, the State Government ought to have put the petitioner Committee to notice before arriving at a satisfaction in this regard. The same does not appear to have been done from a bare perusal of the impugned order. The order appears to have been passed without undertaking any such exercise. Merely because the Vice-Chancellor has failed to take a decision and there is a dispute pending, the same would not be enough to appoint an Authorized Controller that too even in violation of the principles of natural justice. Apart from this, a mere recital that the State Government is satisfied that there are genuine instances of misappropriation of funds would not amount to recording of specific reasons. The financial misappropriation has to be alleged, specified, individual notice to be issued by the State Government and then dealt with after obtaining the objection or explanation of the Committee of Management. The State Government has not recorded any such reason or as referred to in such procedure having been adopted before passing of the impugned order. The reasons are vague and unsupported by any details of fact. For the foregoing reasons, the order is unsustainable. 9. The State Government has not recorded any such reason or as referred to in such procedure having been adopted before passing of the impugned order. The reasons are vague and unsupported by any details of fact. For the foregoing reasons, the order is unsustainable. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.9.2010 is quashed. It shall be open to the State Government to proceed in the matter in case the law so permits in accordance with Rules after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to any other aggrieved person. Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.339922 of 2010 10. This Impleadment Application has been filed by the Authorized Controller, who has not been made a party. 11. Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant is a proper and necessary party and, therefore, he may be heard in the writ petition. He, therefore, submits that in view of the averments contained in paragraph No.4 of the Affidavit, it is evident that the impugned order passed by the State Government is justified and, therefore, he prays that the applicant be impleaded and the writ petition be dismissed. 12. The Court is not impressed by the argument of Sri Shesh Kumar inasmuch as the Authorized Controller has no individual right to contest the matter pertaining to the supercession of the Committee of Management. Apart from this, the submission raised by Sri Shesh Kumar that the impugned order indicates application of mind in relation to the alleged misappropriation of funds also does not appeal to reason inasmuch as the impugned order does not indicate any specified reason of misappropriation and makes a one sentence vague allegation. It is settled by now that an order can be sustained on the strength of the reasons contained therein and cannot be supported by any other material including the Affidavit. The State Government has failed to record any specific reasons particularly in relation to the allegations of financial irregularities and in the absence of any such reasons, the aforesaid submission of Sri Shesh Kumar deserves to be rejected. 13. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. _____________