JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The instant writ petition is directed against an order dated 24.1.2018 passed by respondent no.2 extending the term of the authorised controller appointed in the institution for a further period of one year. The order has been passed in purported exercise of power under Section 6 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978. 2. The petitioner claims itself to be duly elected Committee of Management of Archarya Narendra Deo Junior High School, Hapur, an institution in respect of which the term of the authorised controller has been extended by the impugned order. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today in which it is stated that the election of the petitioner Committee was held in the year 2014 and the list of office bearers was duly registered by the Registrar under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is also the case of the petitioner that under the bye-laws, the term of Committee of Management is five years and, therefore, the petitioner Committee is entitled to continue till the year 2019. 3. The impugned order is being assailed on the ground that it is a non-speaking order. It does not disclose any reason for extending the term of the authorised controller, though it refers to certain recommendation made by Assistant Director of Education (Basic) dated 10.1.2018. 4. On 18.5.2018, the following order was passed:- "Learned standing counsel seeks time to obtain instructions in the matter and also to produce the report dated 10.1.2018 by Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Pratham Mandal, Meerut, on basis of which the term of the Authorised Controller has been extended for a further period of one year. Put up as fresh on 24.5.2018." 5. Since then, the matter was adjourned on two dates to enable learned standing counsel to obtain the report and place it on record. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned standing counsel has placed on record the report dated 10.1.2018. It states that a recommendation dated 26.12.2017 has been received from District Basic Education Officer for extension of the term of the authorised controller and its copy was enclosed with the said letter. However, copy of the recommendation of District Basic Education Officer has not been produced. 6. It states that a recommendation dated 26.12.2017 has been received from District Basic Education Officer for extension of the term of the authorised controller and its copy was enclosed with the said letter. However, copy of the recommendation of District Basic Education Officer has not been produced. 6. Under Section 6 (3) of the Act, the Regional Deputy Director of Education is invested with the power to appoint authorised controller for such period not exceeding one year, as may be specified by him in the order. Under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6, he is invested with the power to extend said period from time to time, so however, that the period so extended does not exceed five years' in the aggregate. An authorised controller is appointed to take over the Management of such institution which fails to comply with any direction given under Section 4 or the provisions of Section 3 or Section 5, even after being called upon by notice issued under sub-section (2) to comply with the said direction or provision or where the cause shown is found to be unsatisfactory. Once an authorised controller is appointed, the object is to ensure that the direction or the provision, which the Management had failed to comply with, is complied with by the authorised controller. In the instant case, concededly, the authorized controller was initially appointed for a period of one year and now its term has been extended by the impugned order. In the opinion of the Court, while extending the term, it was implicit in the provision investing power upon the second respondent to record a satisfaction that the direction or provision, which was required to be complied with, had not been complied with. The order should also indicate the reason why the authorised controller, even after having worked for one year, could not ensure compliance of the direction/provision. The term of authorised controller cannot be extended mechanically merely because it is permissible under the statute. 7. Under clause (2) of the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6, the second respondent is also invested with the power to revoke the order at any time. The term of authorised controller cannot be extended mechanically merely because it is permissible under the statute. 7. Under clause (2) of the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6, the second respondent is also invested with the power to revoke the order at any time. Since the impugned order does not contain any reason nor the recommendation of District Basic Education Officer on basis of which such order has been passed, is being placed on record and, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, interest of justice would be served in permitting the petitioner to approach the second respondent with a certified copy of this order and a request to revoke the impugned order. In the event, any such request is made, the second respondent shall proceed to decide the same, by passing a speaking order, within a period of four weeks. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.