Order Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Govt. Pleader – 3, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 & 8 as well as Sri Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 7/B.N.Mandal University, Madhepura (hereinafter referred to as “University”). 2. Though, the present writ petition was listed under the heading “For Orders on Petition”, which was filed for granting interim stay, with the consent of the parties, the whole writ petition alongwith interlocutory application was taken up for its final decision. In the interlocutory application, a prayer has been made for directing the respondents to stay further proceeding with regard of constitution of Governing Body of R.P.M. Degree College, Madhepura (hereinafter referred to as “College”) under the University till disposal of the writ petition. 3. The main writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to hold election of donor member of the College and thereafter, Co-option of Educationist member and further for grant of stay of the Governing Body. The petitioner has claimed that he had donated fifty thousand rupees to become donor member of the College. Thereafter, the matter was enquired and finally, vide Annexure “3” to the writ petition i.e. Memo No. 1991/13 dated 13-09-2013, under the order of Vice-Chancellor of the University, the petitioner was declared as donor member. Even though, the petitioner was declared donor member vide Annexure “3”, the Principal of the College i.e. respondent no. 9 invited one Dr. (Major) Upendra Narayan Mandal to participate in the meeting of the Governing Body in the capacity of the donor member of the College. Thereafter, immediately the petitioner filed representation before the Vice-Chancellor for staying the meeting on the ground that though the petitioner was declared donor member, he was not invited to participate in the meeting and finally, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to hold election of the donor member of the College in question. 4. Thereafter, immediately the petitioner filed representation before the Vice-Chancellor for staying the meeting on the ground that though the petitioner was declared donor member, he was not invited to participate in the meeting and finally, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to hold election of the donor member of the College in question. 4. Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the Vice Chancellor of the University, exercising power of the Syndicate, had already declared the petitioner as donor member and once, the petitioner was declared as donor member, it was first required by the authority concerned to hold an election for donor members and without holding such election, it was not proper to convene any meeting and contrary to the provision, vide Annexure “5” to the writ petition, the Principal of the College invited one donor member i.e. Dr. (Major) Upendra Narayan Mandal to participate in the meeting. He submits that as per Section 60 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) as well as Statute 32, the petitioner is required to be treated as donor member and he was also entitled to participate in the meeting. 5. Sri Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/University has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that though it is true that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand), but said amount was deposited for the development of the College in question and not for the purpose of treating him (petitioner) as donor member. Moreover, he submits that the petitioner till date has not been declared as donor member. He submits that contents of Annexure “3” to the writ petition i.e. communication issued by the Vice-Chancellor itself makes it clear that the petitioner was to be treated as donor member after the approval of the Syndicate and in absence of the approval of the Syndicate, there is no point to treat the petitioner as donor member at the moment and as such, the Principal of the College has rightly invited donor member i.e. Dr. (Major) Upendra Narayan Mandal to participate in the proceeding. He further submits that as per communication made vide Annexure “5”, a meeting was to be convened on 07-12-2013 and that period has already lapsed. 6. (Major) Upendra Narayan Mandal to participate in the proceeding. He further submits that as per communication made vide Annexure “5”, a meeting was to be convened on 07-12-2013 and that period has already lapsed. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. The claim of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the Vice Chancellor had exercised power of Syndicate and thereafter, he had declared the petitioner as donor member appears to be misconceived due to the simple reason that communication i.e. Annexure “3” itself indicates that the Vice Chancellor treated him a donor member subject to approval of the Syndicate. Once the Vice Chancellor contemplates for obtaining approval of Syndicate, there is no point to accept the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the Vice Chancellor had exercised the power of the Syndicate. Moreover, regarding donor member, Statute 32 of the Act prescribes certain procedures. Even in case of any dispute amongst the donor members, there is provision for raising dispute firstly before the Syndicate and thereafter, if still the party considers that grievance has not been redressed, then there is provision for filing appeal before the Chancellor. For just decision in the matter, it would be appropriate to quote Clause 1 and 2 of Statute 32 regarding Governing Body, which is as follows:- “1. There shall be a Governing Body constituted for management and administration of every admitted college other than college owned and maintained by the State Government or College established and administered by religious linguistic minorities or admitted as Technical or Medical colleges which shall consist of the following members:- (i) Principal of the College-Ex-officio. (ii) One teacher elected from and by the teachers of the College. (iii) One representative of the University nominated by the Syndicate. (iv) One Government Officer of the State Government not below the rank of the Sub-divisional Magistrate posted in the district nominated by the Syndicate. (v) One member elected from amongst themselves by Donors who have donated not less than Rs. 25,000/- to the college. (vi) One member either of Parliament or the State Legislature residing in the district preferably of the locality where the college is situated nominated by the Syndicate. (v) One member elected from amongst themselves by Donors who have donated not less than Rs. 25,000/- to the college. (vi) One member either of Parliament or the State Legislature residing in the district preferably of the locality where the college is situated nominated by the Syndicate. (vii) One member co-opted by the Governing Body from amongst the educationist or persons noted for their academic interest residing in the district where the college is situated: Provided that in the case of colleges owned and maintained by the Government, the Governing Body consisting of seven members shall be constituted by the Syndicate in consultation with the State Government: Provided further that in the case of colleges established and administered by minorities based on religion or language or Medical/Engineering colleges other than those maintained by the Government the Governing Body shall be constituted by the Syndicate after considering the advice of the sponsors authorities of the college concerned. But where however the Syndicate is not able to satisfy itself about the bonafides of sponsors authorities of any such college or for any other reason it may constitute an Ad-hoc committee consisting of not more than 5 members. (2) (i) If for any reason the Governing Body of an admitted college is not constituted, the Syndicate shall constitute an Ad-hoc committee of not more than five members until the Governing Body is constituted. The President and the Secretary of the Ad-hoc committee shall be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. (ii) If any difficulty arises in the formation or the filling up of any seat in the Governing Body of any admitted college for any reason what-so-ever, the Syndicate shall on its own initiative or on reference to it shall decide the issue. If anybody, however, is dissatisfied with the decision of the Syndicate, he shall have the right of appeal to the Chancellor within thirty days of the decision whose decision thereon shall be final and binding on the persons concerned. 2 (i) Every admitted college shall maintain a separate register in which names and addresses of such persons as have donated not less than Rs. 25,000 to the college shall be entered. The register so maintained shall be kept upto-date by endorsing, from time to time, all additions or corrections thereto. (ii) The list of donors who have donated Rs. 2 (i) Every admitted college shall maintain a separate register in which names and addresses of such persons as have donated not less than Rs. 25,000 to the college shall be entered. The register so maintained shall be kept upto-date by endorsing, from time to time, all additions or corrections thereto. (ii) The list of donors who have donated Rs. 25,000 or more shall be prepared by the principal and scrutinized by the University Auditor and approved by the Syndicate. (iii) The list of donors containing names of all such donors from whom donations have been received up to 31st July shall be published every year by 31st August and put up on college and University Notice Boards and intimation thereof shall be notified in a newspaper. (iv) Every objection relating to inclusion or non-inclusion of the name of any person in the list of donors shall be filed before the Registrar within 15 days of the publication of the Notice in the Newspapers and the Syndicate, after considering the objections, if any, shall decide the matter. (v) The list of donors, as finally approved by the Syndicate shall form the basis for election, if any, to be held before the publication of the next list.” 7. In view of the aforesaid provision, if for the time being it is assumed that there was any dispute, instead of availing statutory alternative remedy, the petitioner was not entitled to directly approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settled that if there is statutory remedy available to a party, he is first required to exhaust the said remedy, only thereafter writ can be maintained. 8. I do not find any ground for interference in the matter. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.