JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel on behalf of the petitioners, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1, Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Verma on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3 and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Singh II on behalf of respondent No. 6. 2. The order under challenge dated 28.9.2015 has been passed by the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra, whereby he has refused to recognize the rival committees of management of the college set up by the petitioners and the private respondents for purposes of Section 2 (13) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (Act). The operative part of the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor reads as under : “Both the rival Committees of Management of the College, for the reasons stated hereinabove, are since illegally constituted, none of them is entitled to be recognized under Section 2(13) of the Act. The Board of Management which elected the first party’s Committee of Management is entitled to elect and constitute the College Committee. The Committee of Management which is presently managing the affairs of the College (i.e. the Second party’s Committee), is since comprised of or constituted by rankout-siders, as held above, the same, hence-forth, cannot manage the affairs of the College, thus and it has no legal existence at all and cannot be recognized under Section 2(13) of the Act. In the Managing Committee of the College three office bearers, namely, President (District Judge, Agra), Vice-President (Raja Anirudh Pal Singh) and the Secretary (i.e. the Principal of the College) are ex officio and not elected, as such they are always available. Therefore, in exercise of the powers under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, I hereby order that these office bearers would manage affairs of the College, until the Board of Management of the Society elects, forms and Constitute a Committee of Management of the College but they would (a) not take policy decisions, (b) not sell, mortgage, lease or otherwise transfer the immovable properties off the College and (c) not incur expenditure of the funds of the College except for the purpose of meeting the day to-day affairs of the College. The Board of Management is, hereby, also put under legal obligation, to forthwith take steps to constitute Managing Committee of the College in accordance with the original (i.e. unamended) Scheme of Management, Act and Statutes and constitute Managing Committee for the College within a reasonable time.” 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent in relation to the maintainability of the instant petition. It is urged that against the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor passed in exercise of power under Section 2 (13) of the Act, the petitioners have the remedy of filing a reference before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Act. He further pointed out that in the past, when the Vice-Chancellor passed an order recognising the management of the petitioners herein, the private respondent preferred Writ-C No. 33448 of 2014. However, this Court declined to entertain the petition and relegated the private respondents to avail the remedy of filing reference before the Chancellor. It is further pointed out that against the aforesaid order, private respondents filed Special Appeal No. 648 of 2014 contending that the order of Vice-Chancellor was in breach of principles of natural justice and thus, they could not have been relegated to avail the alternative remedy. However, the contention was repelled and the special appeal was dismissed by holding that even the aforesaid question as to whether opportunity was granted to the private respondents or not and whether for want of such opportunity, the order is liable to be struck down, can be examined by the Chancellor while entertaining the reference under Section 68 of the Act. It is urged that the impugned decision has been taken after the reference preferred by the private respondents was allowed and the Vice-Chancellor was directed to take a fresh decision. It is submitted that the impugned decision has been taken by the Vice-Chancellor after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides and thus, all questions relating to the validity of the said order, can be examined by the Chancellor. 4. Countering the aforesaid submissions, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Committee of Management and another v. Vice-Chancellor and others, 2009(2) ESC 194 (SC). 4. Countering the aforesaid submissions, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Committee of Management and another v. Vice-Chancellor and others, 2009(2) ESC 194 (SC). That was a case relating to a minority institution, wherein its management had recommended for removal of the Principal of the college after holding disciplinary proceedings against him. The Vice-Chancellor refused to grant approval to the proposal of the management. The aforesaid order was subjected to challenge before the High Court on the ground that sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act and as also the proviso thereto is ultra vires of clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, as the institution in question is a minority institution. It was urged before the Supreme Court that in a case where such basic question relating to the validity of the Act and its interpretation were involved, the High Court was not jusitifed in dismissing the petition on the ground of existence of alternative remedy. It was also urged before the Supreme Court that in view of the decision in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 , the power to lay down service conditions of employees of a minority institution does not include the power to interfere in the administrative control by the management over the staff. It is in the aforesaid background that the Supreme Court held that these questions ought to have been considered by the High Court itself, instead of relegating the party to avail the alternative remedy. 5. The aforesaid decision is thus clearly distinguishable and is of no help to the petitioners herein. 6. The next decision cited by the petitioners is in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, 1998 (8) SCC 1 , wherein the Supreme Court has laid down broad principles holding that in cases where there is infringement of fundamental right or violation of principles of natural justice or vires of some provisions of law is under challenge, then a party cannot be relegated to avail the alternative remedy. The aforesaid decision would also not apply to the facts of the instant case, as none of those factors are made out. 7. The aforesaid decision would also not apply to the facts of the instant case, as none of those factors are made out. 7. In view of the above, the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the private respondent is upheld. The petitioners are relegated to avail the alternative remedy of filing reference before the Chancellor. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed. ———————