JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The petitioners, who are the Committee of Management and Manager of a recognised institution in the name of Shri Gyan Chandra Jain Vaidya Inter College, Ikdil, Etawah have approached this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 1.3.2016 passed by the State Government (respondent no. 1) in purported exercise of power under Section 16-D(8) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as well as the consequential order dated 2.3.2016, whereby directions have been issued to the Authrised Controller take charge of the affairs of the institution. 2. It appears from the record that certain inspection was carried out in the institution by a joint team comprising of District Inspector of Schools, Etawah and Regional Joint Director of Education. In the said enquiry, certain financial and administrative irregularities came to the notice of the inspecting team and accordingly, a report was submitted. The first respondent on the basis of such report issued a show cause notice dated 20.1.2016 to the petitioners under Section 16-D (5). According to the State respondents, the petitioners were avoiding to receive the notice and consequently, it was served on them by affixation. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioners have due notice of the proceedings initiated by the State Government pursuant to show cause notice dated 20.1.2016. The petitioners instead of submitting reply to the show cause notice, by means of letter dated 23.1.2016, followed by another letter dated 29.1.2016, requested the first respondent to supply copy of the enquiry report and all documents, which are part of such report to enable the petitioners to submit an effective reply. However, the enquiry report, nor the documents, were supplied to the petitioners. The first respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 1.3.2016, supposedly, under Section 16-D (8) of the Act and thereby the management has been suspended for a period of six months and an Authorised Controller has been appointed. The order specifically recites that grave financial and administrative irregularities were found by the inspecting team and in the absence of any explanation submitted by the petitioners, no other alternative is left except to invoke power under Section 16-D (8) of the Act. 4. The order specifically recites that grave financial and administrative irregularities were found by the inspecting team and in the absence of any explanation submitted by the petitioners, no other alternative is left except to invoke power under Section 16-D (8) of the Act. 4. Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey submitted that reference to Section 16-D (8) in the impugned order is infact a misnomer inasmuch as the State Government by impugned order has virtually passed a final order upholding the charges levelled against the petitioners. It is submitted that in view of such findings in the impugned order, nothing is now left to be decided. It is urged in the alternative that in case the order is referable to the power under Section 16-D (8), then such power should have been invoked while issuing notice under sub-section (5). It is urged that in the instant case, while issuing notice under sub-section (5), the State Government did not consider it to be a case of grave emergency so as to invoke power under sub-section (8) and therefore exercise of power at a later point of time is wholly illegal. It is further stated that in the impugned order, there is no finding recorded that immediate suspension of the Committee of Management is also necessary or expedient in the interest of the institution and consequently, the invocation of power under sub-section (8) is wholly illegal. 5. Sri C.B. Yadav, Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State respondents assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh submitted that the petitioners have admittedly received the show cause notice, but in order to delay the proceedings, they did not submit the reply. It is urged that since the petitioners were delaying the disposal of the proceedings and therefore, the State Government considered it appropriate to invoke its power under Section 16-D (8) of the Act pending passing of the final orders. He, however does not dispute that the copy of the enquiry report alongwith the documents have not been supplied to the petitioners, as was being asked by them by means of repeated letters. He also very fairly admits that in the impugned order, findings on merits have been recorded. He, however does not dispute that the copy of the enquiry report alongwith the documents have not been supplied to the petitioners, as was being asked by them by means of repeated letters. He also very fairly admits that in the impugned order, findings on merits have been recorded. He therefore stated that it may be left open to the State Government to pass final orders after supplying copy of enquiry report and other documents to the petitioners, so that the controversy is settled once for all. 6. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is also of the opinion that once the explanation of the petitioners has already been called for and at the time of issuance of the show cause notice power under sub-section (8) was not invoked, it would be in the interest of justice to permit the State Government to pass final orders after supplying the required documents instead of taking recourse to power under Section 16-D(8). 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 1.3.2016 passed by respondent no. 1 and the consequential order dated 2.3.2016 are quashed and the State respondents are directed to supply copy of the enquiry report and all documents to the petitioners within a week. It is clarified that in case the documents are sent to the second petitioner by speed post acknowledgment due, it shall be deemed to be a valid service for the purposes of this order. 8. Counsel for the petitioners also does not have any objection in case the documents are sent to the petitioners by speed post. Soon thereafter, within a period of next two weeks, the petitioners will submit their explanation to the show cause notice dated 19/20.1.2016 and thereafter, it shall be open to the respondents to pass final orders under sub-section (6) of Section 16-D of the Act. In case, the petitioners fail to submit their reply within the period prescribed, it shall be open to the respondents to take final decision in the matter. 9. Counsel for the petitioners has given an undertaking before this Court that in the meantime, the petitioners will not withdraw any amount from the accounts of the institution except in relation to day to day expenditure and for the purposes of payment of salary to the teachers and the employees of the institution. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.