ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. A pointed attack was made on the decision of B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura, by virtue of which the regular governing body of Satendra Narayan Singh Mahila College, Mamtapuri at Supaul was dissolved and an ad-hoc committee constituted by virtue of Annexure-6, dated 16.11.2012. The regular governing body was notified on 30th of November, 2011 and almost within a year an adhoc committee has been put in place. 3. Petitioner, who happens to be the Secretary and donor member for life, has assailed the said order on the ground that the basic parameters of the Act and the Statute have not been followed. The relevant Act is the Bihar Universities Act, Section 60 (1) to (4) and Statute 32, Clause 28, which governs dissolution of governing bodies. 4. The first submission of the counsel is that no show-cause or any notice in relation to the dissolution of the governing body was ever issued. If that is so, the decision to dissolve the regular governing body in terms of Annexure-6 is per se illegal and required to be quashed. 5. The second limb of argument is that even the reconstitution is not in consonance with Section 60, sub-clause 1 of the Bihar Universities Act, because the said provision specifically provides as to who and how the governing body has to be constituted. Though there is some kind of leverage in matters of constitution of ad-hoc committee in terms of Rule 60, Sub-clause 4 but the Division Bench of this Court in case of Governing Body and Somri Hari Nath Mahila College and another Vrs. Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Gaya and others, reported in 1990 (1) P.L.J.R. 249 , after analyzing various provisions of the Act, especially Section 60 and their Sub-clauses, came to a considered opinion in paragraph 10, which is reproduced hereinbelow: “10. The learned Advocate General has conceded that the Syndicate’s power is not unbridled and it has to adhere to the guidelines in the Act and the Statutes in constituting the ad-hoc committee. Such guidelines are in sub section (1) of section 60 and read with chapter XIII of the Statutes control the discretion of the Syndicate. The learned Advocate General has conceded that the Syndicate’s power is not unbridled and it has to adhere to the guidelines in the Act and the Statutes in constituting the ad-hoc committee. Such guidelines are in sub section (1) of section 60 and read with chapter XIII of the Statutes control the discretion of the Syndicate. There are good reasons to think that the Governing Body of a college is a perpetual Body, whether called an ad-hoc committee or a regular Committee, it has to have as members persons falling in the seven categories enumerated in section 60 (1) of the Act. It is ad-hoc until the constitution is complete by the teachers representative, the donors and co-opted members brought as members and office bearers elected in accordance with the provisions of the statutes. So long the office bearers are not elected, the President and the Secretary are to be the nominees of the Vice-Chancellor. That is the only difference in the ad-hoc and the regular committee.” 6. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that if the ratio of the above Division Bench is taken into consideration, the constitution of the ad-hoc governing body clearly falls foul of not only the rational of the Division Bench, but also statutory provisions, contained in Section 60, Sub-clause 1. 7. The stand of the university is that there was large scale irregularities and illegality in relation to running of the College in question. There were certain Principals or Ex-Principals, who were at loggerheads and even F.I.R. came to be instituted against one another. Notice had been issued to the Secretary to respond to the accusations and allegations. When no satisfactory answer came, university was left with no option, but to dissolve the governing body in the interest of the college. 8. The Court wanted to have a look at the notice, which was given to the authorities, which formed the basis for dissolution. The stand of the university is that the said notice is Annexure-F, dated 23.05.2012. 9. A plain reading of the said notice does not indicate that this was a notice for dissolution, though it was a notice in relation to the working of the Managing Committee or the way, the college was being run. The stand of the university is that the said notice is Annexure-F, dated 23.05.2012. 9. A plain reading of the said notice does not indicate that this was a notice for dissolution, though it was a notice in relation to the working of the Managing Committee or the way, the college was being run. How the petitioner or such authorities could treat it as notice for dissolution is not appreciated by the Court nor is being successfully demonstrated by the counsel for the university. 10. In view of the above, the decision, contained in Annexure-6, does suffer from several vices. Writ application is allowed. The impugned order, contained in Annexure-6, dated 16.11.2012 is quashed. The university is directed to constitute a regular governing body in terms of the provision of the Statute within a reasonable time-frame.