JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The petitioner committee of management of a recognised institution in the name of Shri Gyan Chandra Jain Vaidya Inter College, Ikdil, Etawah has approached this Court assailing the validity of a notice issued by the sixth respondent, whereby the second petitioner was called upon to appear in his office on 31.5.2016 in connection with an enquiry, which was being held in relation to the charge of misappropriation and misuse of a sum of Rs.92,86,200/- awarded as compensation to the institution for acquisition of some part of its land. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the State Government initiated proceedings against the petitioner committee of management for its super-session under Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It passed an order on 1.3.2016 in purported exercise of power under Section 16-D (8) of the Act superseding the management for a period of six months. The aforesaid order was subjected to challenge by the petitioners in Writ-C No.11230 of 2016. The writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 10.3.2016 being of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justification on part of the State Government to have recourse to the power under sub-section (8) of Section 16-D. However, it was left open to the respondents to pass final orders under sub-section (6) of Section 16-D. The State Government again by order dated 2.5.2016 superseded the management by taking recourse to the power under sub-section (8) of Section 16-D. The aforesaid order was again subjected to challenge by the petitioners by filing Writ-C No.21335 of 2016. Again this Court by an order dated 10.5.2016 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 2.5.2016. It was clarified that the State Government will be at liberty to pass final orders under Section 16-D (6) of the Act after supplying the requisite documents to the petitioners. In the meantime, the interim arrangement, which was made by this Court by order dated 10.3.2016 while disposing of Writ-C No.11230 of 2016, was directed to remain in force. The operative part of the order of this Court dated 10.5.2016 is to the following effect: - "Accordingly and in view of the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State-respondents, the impugned order dated 2 May 2016 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The operative part of the order of this Court dated 10.5.2016 is to the following effect: - "Accordingly and in view of the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State-respondents, the impugned order dated 2 May 2016 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the State Government with liberty to pass final orders under section 16-D(6) of the Act after supplying the copies of the comments of the District Inspector of Schools and the Joint Director of Education or such other enquiry report on which reliance is likely to be placed. Such exercise be carried out by the State Government expeditiously, in accordance with law. Until the final orders are passed, the arrangement which was made by this Court while passing the order dated 10 March 2016 in Writ-C No.11230 of 2016, shall continue." 3. Thereafter, while the proceedings remained pending before the State Government, the District Inspector of Schools lodged a first information report against the second petitioner under Section 409 IPC. It was challenged by the petitioners by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12623 of 2016 primarily on the ground that lodging of the F.I.R. against the petitioners was an outcome of political vendetta. This Court, being prima facie satisfied with the contention of the petitioners, stayed their arrest by order dated 30.5.2016. It seems that thereafter the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur by order dated 24.5.2016 constituted a three member committee for holding an enquiry into the allegation of misappropriation of the compensation amount awarded to the institution in lieu of acquisition of part of its land. The sixth respondent, who is one of the member of the said enquiry committee, issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to appear in his office on 31.5.2016 in connection with the said enquiry alongwith the necessary documents. The case of the petitioners is that on 31.5.2016, the date fixed for holding enquiry, the second petitioner was at Allahabad in connection with the filing of the writ petition challenging the first information report. He gave the said information to the sixth respondent on his mobile phone and requested for some other date being fixed but he did not respond. It has further been alleged in the writ petition that an application dated 4.6.2016 was sent to the sixth respondent in that regard. He gave the said information to the sixth respondent on his mobile phone and requested for some other date being fixed but he did not respond. It has further been alleged in the writ petition that an application dated 4.6.2016 was sent to the sixth respondent in that regard. The petitioners have now preferred the instant writ petition assailing the notice issued by the sixth respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the enquiry, which is being held by the sixth respondent, is on the basis of an order issued by Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, who has no jurisdiction to intermeddle in the affairs of a recognised institution. It is submitted that the petitioners could not appear on 31.5.2016 for the reasons noted above and thus, any enquiry which has been held by the sixth respondent, is illegal. 5. This Court by order dated 8.6.2016 required Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents to apprise the Court as to on whose instructions the enquiry is being held by three member committee. The copy of the letter of the Commissioner dated 24.5.2016 was also directed to be produced before this Court. 6. In compliance of the said direction, Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents has produced before this Court a letter by the Principal Secretary, Education, Government of U.P. dated 23.5.2016, whereby in course of proceedings under Section 16-D (6), the State Government has directed for an enquiry being held by a technical audit committee into the charge of misappropriation of the compensation amount. The letter is addressed to the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur requiring him to include in the enquiry committee atleast one officer of the rank of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and a Senior Finance and Accounts Officer. He has also produced the letter of the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur dated 24.5.2016, whereby in compliance of the direction given by the State Government, a three member committee comprising of Sri Vikramditya Pandey, the sixth respondent, Sri Rakesh Singh, Executive Engineer P.W.D. Construction Division II, Kanpur Nagar and Sri Vinay Kumar Rai, Regional Finance and Accounts Officer (Food), Kanpur Division, Kanpur has been constituted and the said committee has been directed to hold an enquiry and submit its report within five days. 7. 7. Thus, from the material brought on record before this Court, it is clear that the enquiry by the three member committee is being held on the direction of the State Government which is seized of the dispute under the provisions of Section 16-D of the Act. The Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur has only issued the order dated 24.5.2016 in compliance of the direction given by the State Government. Thus, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the enquiry, which is being held, is at the instance of Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, who has no jurisdiction in the matter. 8. Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents has further apprised the Court of the fact that since the petitioners have not appeared before the three member committee on 31.5.2016 and therefore, the said committee has concluded the enquiry and has submitted its report to the State Government. He has further informed the Court that the State Government has already issued a show cause notice to the petitioners on 9.6.2016 calling upon their explanation in response to the report of the technical audit committee by 17.6.2016. 9. In the opinion of the Court, since the enquiry by the three member committee had been held in course of proceedings under Section 16-D, which are still under way, consequently, no interference is called for at this stage. However, it is always open to the petitioners to file their objections against the findings of the enquiry committee and it shall also be open to them to raise the plea that the enquiry held by the technical audit committee was in violation of principles of natural justice and that no fresh enquiry was warranted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It shall further be open to the petitioners to raise all other pleas and contentions and which shall be duly taken into account by the State Government while passing final orders. 10. With the aforesaid clarifications, the petition stands disposed of.