ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. The petitioner has filed the present petitioner being aggrieved by the Notification dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 19.09.2017 (Annexure P/2). 2. The petitioner while working as a Director of National Oil Seed and Vegetable Oil Development Board, Government of India, was appointed as a Vice Chancellor of Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Faizabad (UP) in the year 2010. After completing the tenure up to 2013, he was appointed as a Director General of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar National Institute of Social Sciences, Mhow, District Indore, vide Notification dated 06.04.2013 for the period of four years. Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar National Institute of Social Sciences, Mhow came into existence by virtue of promultation of an enactment B. R. Ambedkar University of Social Sciences Act, 2015 [in brief "the Act of 2015"]. By virtue of Section 42 (2) of the Act of 2015, the petitioner became first Vice Chancellor of the University vide Notification No.449/353/CC/15-38 dated 05.04.2016 for the period of five years from the date of joining. 3. The petitioner is claiming that because of his sincere efforts in the field of higher education, research, extension and training in social science and experience the University has started working efficiently in the field of education, excellence especially for the betterment of SC/ST and OBCs. The petitioner made enormous efforts to build the University which are evident from the fact that the better infrastructure facilities in the development and management of the University, 300 acres of land was acquired. The University under the leadership of the petitioner, within one year of his tenure made an initiatives and formulated 5 schools with 34 departments for imparting higher education, like M.Phil, PHD degree etc.. The University has also started establishing the Samajik Vigyan Kendra in various district of Madhya Pradesh. All India Entrance Test was organized and research scholars were admitted in the University for the academic session 2015-2016 as per the UGC norms. The first batch has completed their course and were awarded M. Phil degree on a convocation of the University held on 18.11.2016. The petitioner has described his achievements in various paragraphs in the writ petition. 4. All India Entrance Test was organized and research scholars were admitted in the University for the academic session 2015-2016 as per the UGC norms. The first batch has completed their course and were awarded M. Phil degree on a convocation of the University held on 18.11.2016. The petitioner has described his achievements in various paragraphs in the writ petition. 4. All of a sudden, Government of M.P., Higher Education Department has issued impugned Notification dated 18.09.2017 in exercise of power under Section 44 (1) of the Act of 2015 followed by order dated 19.09.2017 by which the petitioner has been relieved from the post of Vice Chancellor w.e.f. 18.09.2017. Thereafter vide order dated 19.09.2017 the Chief Secretary of Higher Education Department, Government of M.P. has been appointed as Vice Chancellor of the University till further orders. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned Notification dated 18.09.2017 and order dated 19.09.2017, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the action of the Respondents as arbitrary, unjust, unfair, perverse and colourable exercise of power. 5. According to the petitioner, the reports on which the action is founded were never communicated to the petitioner. No enquiry was ever made into the management of the University in fair and transparent manner. The action taken under Section 44 of the Act of 2015 is not a legislative but is a purely statutory action which is subject to judicial review. Hence, prayed for interference by the High Court with the impugned Notification under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. After notice in the writ petition, the Respondents filed the return by submitting at the very out set that the petitioner has tendered his resignation from the post of Vice Chancellor to the Chancellor on 18.09.2017. The petitioner has suppressed this fact in the writ petition which dis-entitle him to seek interference of this High Court under extra ordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is deserves to be dismissed on this sole ground. The Respondents further submitted that Article 361 of the Constitution of India grants immunity to the Prpesident and the Governor of the State from being answerable to any Court for exercising and performing duties of their office as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India [ AIR 2006 SC 980 ]. 7. The Respondents further submitted that Article 361 of the Constitution of India grants immunity to the Prpesident and the Governor of the State from being answerable to any Court for exercising and performing duties of their office as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India [ AIR 2006 SC 980 ]. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner while carrying out his functions and duties as Vice Chancellor has lead to such a situation where the administration of University affairs could not be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2015. A report was called regarding the affairs of the University. The Principal Secretary submitted its report describing the mismanagement of the affairs of the University. The Registrar of the University vide his note-sheet dated 26.05.2016 and 13.09.2017 had categorically raised the issue of non compliance of the guidelines issued by the UGC. The Government has also received complaint from one Balram Singh highlighting the irregularities in the administration of the University. Looking to the gravity of the situation and the material exposed through the report, it has become necessary to invoke the provisions of Section 44 (1) (2) (3) (4) and (5) of the Act of 2015 with immediate effect. Hence, no interference is called for with the impugned Notification in the writ petition, hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The petitioner submitted rejoinder to the return by submitting that the petitioner submitted resignation due to the circumstances created by the Respondents and the petitioner submitted his resignation, but the impugned order was not passed on his resignation letter. The resignation of the petitioner has never been acted upon, therefore, there was no reason to disclose the said resignation letter in the writ petition. The Respondents have failed to disclose the reasons in the impugned order as well as in the return which is necessary under Section 44 of the Act of 2015. 9. While issuing notices to the Respondents, this Court has directed the Respondents to keep the complete record proceeding passing of the impugned order be kept ready on the next date of hearing. 10. 9. While issuing notices to the Respondents, this Court has directed the Respondents to keep the complete record proceeding passing of the impugned order be kept ready on the next date of hearing. 10. On 08.01.2018, the original record was produced before the Court and this Court has passed the following order :- "Indore dated 08.01.2018 Dr H.S. Tripathi, Registrar, Dr B.R. Ambedkar University of Socil Science, Mhow is present in person along with Dr Kailash Nath Chaturvedi, Additional Director, Higher Education. They have produced the original record. The record reveals that the present petitioner has submitted an unconditional resignation on 18.09.2017. However, prior to his resignation, the Hon'ble Governor, who is also the Vice Chancellor of the University has exercised the powers conferred under section 44 of the Dr B.R. Ambedkar University of Social Sciences Act, 2015. This Court has carefully gone through the record and the same reflects that his Excellency the Governor has exercised his powers under section 44 of the Act of 2015, in the interest of the University, keeping in view the material which was placed by him. This Court has carefully gone through the record of the case and there was enough material before his Excellency to invoke Section 44 of the Act of 2015. Matter has to be heard. Today Lawyers are abstaining from Court work. The case is adjourned. List the matter on 05.03.2018." The matter was directed to be placed on 05.03.2018. 11. The counsel for the petitioner took a Mention Memo and got the petition listed on 22.01.2018. On 22.01.2018, the Court has directed to list this matter on 08.02.2018 along with the record. 12. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned Notification dated 18.09.2017 is casting stigma on the career of the petitioner. The petitioner is having unblemished career throughout. By passing impugned Notification dated 18.09.2017, the Respondents have casted allegations on his working, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Respondents to give a fair opportunity of hearing before passing the order. The impugned Notification was passed behind the back of the petitioner which deserves to be set-aside. The petitioner is having unblemished career throughout. By passing impugned Notification dated 18.09.2017, the Respondents have casted allegations on his working, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Respondents to give a fair opportunity of hearing before passing the order. The impugned Notification was passed behind the back of the petitioner which deserves to be set-aside. Shri Sethi has drawn attention to the provisions of Section 44 (1) of the Act of 2015 and emphasized that if the State Government on receipt of a report or otherwise, was satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it may issue a notification, for reasons to be mentioned therein. The Government was required to record a reason in the notification for invoking Section 44 of the Act of 2015. In the Notification no reasons have been assigned. Therefore, there is a non compliance of Section 44 (1) of the Act of 2015. The Respondents have placed reliance that Annexure R/2 which is nothing but Brief-Note written by the Principal Secretary. Even in Annexure R/2 note-sheet written by the Registrar cannot be basis of impugned Notification. Hence, there is no satisfaction recorded by the State Government on a receipt of a report. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Prof. Narendra Kumar Gouraha v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1999 MP 122 , in which the notification removing the Vice Chancellor by notifying emergency power under Section 52 of the M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 was quashed by the High Court. The provisions of Section 44 of the M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 are pari-materia to the provisions of Section 44 of the Act of 2015. The High Court has set-aside the notification on the ground that the Vice Chancellor was not given any opportunity at any stage. The enquiry report was made behind his back and before making any defamatory remarks against the personal conduct of the Vice Chancellor, and fair opportunity to explain the same ought to have been granted before taking drastic action under Section 52 of the Act of 1973. The enquiry report was made behind his back and before making any defamatory remarks against the personal conduct of the Vice Chancellor, and fair opportunity to explain the same ought to have been granted before taking drastic action under Section 52 of the Act of 1973. A minimal act of fairness on the part of the Government is expected for maintaining the dignity of the high office of Vice Chancellor. 13. Shri Sethi, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the allegations made against him in the impugned Notification and if the Government is ready to remove the said allegations, the petitioner is not interested in working as a Vice Chancellor. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed. 14. Per contra, Shri Manoj Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondents has refuted the arguments of Shri Sethi by submitting that the petitioner has already submitted his resignation on a personal grounds. While submitting the resignation, he did not lodge any protest against the impugned Notification, therefore, he is stopped from challenging the notification before this Court. The Brief-Note prepared by the Principal Secretary and the note-sheet of the Registrar along with other material were placed before the Government and thereafter the decision was taken to invoke the provisions of Section 44 of the Act of 2015. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 44 (1) of the Act of 2015 can be invoked by the State Government on a receipt of report or otherwise. There is no requirement of opportunity of hearing before invoking Section 44. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Dr. Bharat Chhaparwal v. State of M.P., reported in 2005 (II) MPJR 384, where the Notification under Section 52 of the Adhiniyam of 1973 was challenged on the ground that the action was politically motivated to get a favourable person appointed as Vice Chancellor and the order was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that this Court cannot enter into sufficiency or insufficiency of the said material. The power under Section 52 of the Adhiniyam is extra ordinary in nature and meant to provide the better administration in the University. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that this Court cannot enter into sufficiency or insufficiency of the said material. The power under Section 52 of the Adhiniyam is extra ordinary in nature and meant to provide the better administration in the University. He has further placed reliance over the judgment passed in the case of Dr Umrao Singh Choudhary v. State of M.P., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 328 , in which the Apex Court has held that the principles of natural justice does not supplant the law, but supplements the law. The Notification issued under Section 52 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 is founded upon any record and whether the reasons given in support thereof, are/is relevant to the issue if the Government has considered the material and the Governor after due satisfaction the power under Section 52 has been exercised. It would not be justified to interfere from the conclusion in judicial review under Article 136 or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 15. The sole controversy involved in this petition whether the Notification dated 18.09.2017 is casting stigma on the petitioner and for which the petitioner was required to provide an opportunity of hearing? For ready reference, Section 44 of the Act of 2015 is reproduced below :- "44. Special provision for better administration of University in certain circumstances.- (1) If the State Government on receipt of a report or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the University can not be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, without detriment to the interests of the University and it is expedient in the interest of the University so to do, it may by notification, for reasons to be mentioned therein, direct that the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) shall, as from the date specified in the notification (hereinafter in this section referred to as the appointed date), apply to the University. (2) The notification issued under sub-section (1) (hereinafter referred to as the notification) shall remain in operation for a period of one year from the appointed date and the State Government may, from time to time, extend the period by such further period as it may think fit so however that the total period of operation of the notification does not exceed three years. (3) As from the appointed date, the Vice-Chancellor, holding office immediately before the appointed date, shall notwithstanding that his term of office has not expired, vacate his office, and the Chancellor shall simultaneously with the issue of the notification appoint the Vice-Chancellor, who shall hold office during the period of operation of the notification. Provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government and may be removed by the Chancellor in the like manner : Provided further, that the Vice-Chancellor may, notwithstanding the expiration of the period of operation of the notification, continue to hold office thereafter until his successor enters upon office but his period shall not exceed one year. (4) As from the appointed date, the following consequences shall ensue, namely :- (i) every person holding office as a member of the Executive Council or the Academic Council, as the case may be, immediately before the appointed date shall cease to hold that office; Provided that the Chancellor may, if he considers it necessary so to do, appoint a committee consisting of an educationist, an administrative expert and a financial expert to assist the Vice-Chancellor so appointed in exercise of such powers and performance of such duties. (5) Before the expiration of the period of operation of the notification or immediately as early as practicable, thereafter, the Vice-Chancellor shall take steps to constitute the Executive Council and Academic Council in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the Executive Council and Academic Council is so constituted shall begin to function on the date immediately following the date of expiry of the period of operation of the notification of the date on which the respective bodies are so constituted, whichever is later : Provided that if the Executive Council and Academic Council are not constituted before the expiration of the period of operation of the notification, the Vice-Chancellor shall on such expiration, exercise the powers of each of these authorities subject to prior approval of the Chancellor till the Executive Council or Academic Council, as the case may be, is so constituted." 16. The Notification under Section 44 of the Act of 2015 is coming first time before this High Court for judicial interpretation. Earlier the Notifications issued under Section 52 of the Adhiniyam 1973 were challenged before this High Court in the case of Dr. Bharat Chhaparwal (supra) and Prof. Narendra Kumar Gouraha (supra). Section 44 of the Act of 2015 is pari-mataria of the Section 52 of the Adhiniyam 1973. For ready reference, Section 52 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 is reproduced below :- "52. Power of State Government to apply Act in modified form with a view to provide for better administration of University in certain circumstances.-- (1) If the State Government on receipt of a report or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, without detriment to the interests of the University and it is expedient in the interest of the University so to do, it may by notification, for reasons to be mentioned therein, direct that the provisions of Sections 13, 14, 20 to 25, 40, 47, 48, 54 and 68 shall, as from the date specified in the notification (hereinafter in this section referred to as the appointed date), apply to the university subject to the modifications specified in the Third Schedule. (2) The notification issued under Sub-section (1) (hereinafter referred to as the notification) shall remain in operation for a period of one year from the appointed date and the State Government, may from time to time, extend the period by such further period as it may think fit so however that the total period of operation of the notification does not exceed three years. (3) The Kuladhipati shall simultaneously with the issue of the notification, appoint the Kulapati under Sections 13 and 14 as modified and the Kulapati so appointed shall hold office during the period of operation of the notification; Provided that the Kulapati may, notwithstanding the expiration of the period of operation of the notification, continue to hold office thereafter until his successor enters upon office but this period shall not exceed one year. (4) As from the appointed date, the following consequences shall ensue, namely :-- (i) during the period of operation of the notification this Act shall have effect subject to the modifications specified in the Third Schedule; (ii) the Kulapati, holding office immediately before the appointed date, shall notwithstanding that his term of office has not expired, vacate his office; (iii) every person holding office as a member of the Court, the Executive Council or the Academic Council, as the case may be, immediately before the appointed date shall cease to hold that office; (iv) the student representatives of the University on the student consultative committee under Clause (i) of Sub-section (i) of Section 54 immediately before the appointed date shall cease to be members of the said committee; (v) until the Court, Executive Council or Academic Council, as the case may be, is reconstituted in accordance with the provisions as modified, the Kulapati appointed under Sections 13 and 14 as modified shall exercise the powers and perform duties conferred or imposed by or under this Act, on the Court, the Executive Council or Academic Council : Provided that the Kuladhipati may, if he considers it necessary so to do, appoint a committee consisting of an educationist, an administrative expert and a financial expert to assist the Kulapati so appointed in exercise of such powers and performance of such duties." 17. In the case of Prof. In the case of Prof. Narendra Kumar Gouraha (supra), this Court has quashed the Notification issued under Section 52 of the Adhiniyam 1973 as the complaint or material were not disclosed to the petitioner therein and opportunity to explain was not given. The High Court has held that permitting misuse of extra ordinary power under Section 52 in the manner as has been done in this case, would defeat the purpose for which such power has been conferred and would thus harm the cause of education and public interest. The High Court has considered the facts of the case and the report and set-aside the notification. 18. In the case of Dr. Bharat Chhaparwal (supra), the High Court has considered the judgment passed in the case of Prof. Narendra Kumar Gouraha (supra) but dismissed the writ petition by placing reliance over the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dr Umrao Singh Choudhary (supra). Para 17 and 18 are reproduced below :- "17. I have referred to the aforesaid decision in extenso as it has dealt with basic conception of Section 52 of the Act. If anatomy of the provision is scanned it would be crystal clear that the said provision is meant to provide a better administration of University in certain circumstances and it is an emergent situation. The said power is extraordinary in nature. As has been held in the case of Narendra Kumar (supra) that such express power would deter competent academicians from accepting assignments and post in the University and may cause harm to the cause of higher education. Taking of action under the emergency provision of Section 52 of the Act a different situation is warranted. An emergency has a different connotation. It is extraordinary in nature. The language in which Section 52 of the Act has been couched requires a larger expanse and a bigger canvas. The action under the provision as a 'sine qua non' would require existence of certain circumstances for better administration of University on the bedrock that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act without detriment to the interest of the University. The action under the provision as a 'sine qua non' would require existence of certain circumstances for better administration of University on the bedrock that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act without detriment to the interest of the University. The power conferred by enactment on the State Government every appropriate action against an individual would not be such a one to warrant taking action by resorting to Section 52 of the Act. The misdeeds and misconducts of a Vice-Chancellor are in a different realm and invoking the emergency provision under Section 52 of the Act against the University as a whole is in a different spectrum. The State Government has to take note of the Situation in entirety and be satisfied with regard to the causation of detriment to the interest of the University. In case of continuance of (a) such a situation then only the provision can be invoked. The extraordinary power as a perquisite requires existence of such a situation. In the absence of a wider canvass only pointing to certain difficulties of the Vice-Chancellor, in my considered opinion, would not warrant taking action under Section 52 of the Act. Such an action has to be exercised in a grave case and cannot be taken as a routine manner. A distinction has to be drawn between the action taken against an individual under certain specific provisions and taking of action against the University in entirely by taking recourse to emergency provision. The distinction has to be borne in mind before taking such an action. It is always useful to keep in mind that emergency can be taken recourse to in exceptional cases and when there is emergence of a situation which warrants immediate, urgent and impromptu action then only such an action should be taken. Scanning of the anatomy of the provision contained under Section 52 of the Act makes it absolutely luminescent that action should be taken for basic preservation of the normal atmosphere. In the absence of arising of such a situation the exercise of power under the aforesaid provision may not withstand scrutiny. The situation should be grave and in a way, irretrievable qua University which would mar and destroy the smooth functioning of the University. In the absence of arising of such a situation the exercise of power under the aforesaid provision may not withstand scrutiny. The situation should be grave and in a way, irretrievable qua University which would mar and destroy the smooth functioning of the University. At this juncture, I may hasten to clarify, in all cases actions taken by an individual cannot be regarded as embedded in the individual realm or sphere. There can be certain actions by an individual, be it the Vice-Chancellor, which can tran sform themselves to a situation which would be of general in nature as a consequence of which there would be compulsory conclusion that the situation has become emergent in nature and the functioning of the University would be difficult to be smoothly carried out. When and how the metamorphosis takes place it would depend upon the facts of the case. In the instant case irregularities and illegalities that have been pointed out by the State can be categorised into various compartments, namely, (i) financial irregularity; (ii) irregularity in the academic field; (iii) irregularity in the realm relating to conferral of degrees which eventuated in catastrophe of the students community; (iv) violation of norms prescribed by the Bar Council of India; (v) violation of University regulations; and (vi) irregularities in the sphere of appointments in the sphere of appointments. I may hasten to clarify nothing has been put forth before this Court to hold that the said allegations are absolutely baseless, unfounded and reeked with malafide except stating that there is a change of political scene. If the allegations have been taken into consideration by the State Government, then an action is warranted. I may hasten to add, some of the allegations were not there at the time of proclamation but latter on they have been revealed. But it cannot be said that there was no material at all. True it is, in the case of Narendra Kumar (supra) this Court has observed that action under Section 52 of the Act should be taken as a last resort but in the said case, the Court has taken note of the Limaye Report. Hence, the view taken in the aforesaid decision is distinguishable. In my considered opinion, the view taken in the case of Dr. Hence, the view taken in the aforesaid decision is distinguishable. In my considered opinion, the view taken in the case of Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary (supra) would govern the present case inasmuch as material have been looked into by the competent authority and the notification has been issued. At this juncture, I may hasten to state that the learned Advocate General for the State in course of hearing submitted that the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case and ergo, the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain in the helm of affairs of the University. Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner did not controvert the factum of conviction but only submitted that it was a case instituted by way of a private complaint and the petitioner in criminal revision No. 449/2004, has been enlarged on bail. Be that as it may, I have noted the said factum, for the sake of completeness. 18. Ex consequenti, I am inclined to hold that the instant case exposits the phenomenon by which individual actions of the Vice-Chancellor have transformed themselves into a generalistic compartment to constitute and bring-forth a situation in which the State Government had been compelled to initiate the action under Section 52 of the Act which was warranted as there was some material to support the same, and this Court cannot enter into sufficiency or insufficiency of the said material. Thus, the notification issued by the State Government does withstand close scrutiny. As a sequitur, the inevitable result is dismissal of the writ petition, which I direct. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." 19. The Apex Court in the case of Dr Umrao Singh Choudhary (supra) has also declined to interfere with the Notification issued under Section 52 in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court has held that on issuance of the Notification under Section 52 (1) and on and with effect from the said date the Vice Chancellor by operation of Section 52 (4) shall vacate his office notwithstanding his term of office had not been expired. By necessary implication, the application of the principle of natural justice has been excluded. The principle of natural justice does not supplant the law, but supplements the law. By necessary implication, the application of the principle of natural justice has been excluded. The principle of natural justice does not supplant the law, but supplements the law. Para 3, 4 and 5 are reproduced below :- "3. Undoubtedly the petitioner was appointed under Section 13 of the Adhiniyam and Section 14 thereof provides an elaborate enquiry and reasonable opportunity for removal of the Vice Chancellor (Kulapati) from office before expiry of the term, obviously as a measure of punishment. Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam equally empowers the State Govt. in a modified form, to satisfy that "if the State Govt. on receipt of a report or otherwise, satisfied that situation has arisen in which the administration of the university cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, without detriment to the interest of the University, and it is expedient in the interest of the University so to do, it may be notification, for reasons to be mentioned therein, direct that the provision of Sections 13, 14, 20 to 25, 40, 47, 54 and 68 shall, as from the date specified in the notification, apply to the university, subject to the modification specified in the Third Schedule". On issuance thereof the Vice Chancellor shall cease to hold office by operation of sub-section (4) of Section 52. clause II thus :- "the Kulpati, holding office immediately before the appointed date, shall notwithstanding that his term of office has not expired, vacate his office." By operation thereof the applicability of Sections 13 and 14 stood modified and the need to conduct a regular enquiry against the petitioner was obviated. On issuance of the notification under Section 52(1) and on and with effect from the said date the Vice Chancellor, by operation of Section 52(4) shall, notwithstanding his term of office had not been expired, is required to vacate his office. In other words, he ceased to hold the office. It is found as a fact that the petitioner ceased to hold office with effect from January 21, 1994 and the new incumbent had assumed office. 4. In other words, he ceased to hold the office. It is found as a fact that the petitioner ceased to hold office with effect from January 21, 1994 and the new incumbent had assumed office. 4. Though the contention of mala fides has been repeated by the learned senior counsel, when we pointed out that the petitioner had not made any specific allegation against any specified officer or holder of the office, nor impleaded any officer or holder of the office as a party respondent, in fairness, the learned Senior counsel did not pursue the line of argument. Nonetheless it was contended that the petitioner was entitled to be afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned notification and the order passed in violation thereof offends the principle of natural justice. We find no force in the contention. Section. 14 engrafts an elaborate procedure to conduct an enquiry against the Vice Chancellor and after giving reasonable opportunity, to take action thereon for his removal from the office. Section 52 engrafts an exception thereto. The condition precedent, however, is that the State Govt. should be satisfied, obviously on objective consideration of the material relevant to the issue, as on record, that the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, without detriment to the interest of the University, and that it is expedient in the interest of the University and for proper administration thereof to apply in a modified form, excluding the application of Sections 13 and 14, etc. and to issue the notification under Section 52(1). By necessary implication, the application of the principle of natural justice has been excluded. In view of this statutory animation the contention that the petitioner is entitled to the notice and an opportunity before taking action under Section 52(1) would be self-defeating. The principle of natural justice does not supplant the law, but supplement the law. Its application may be excluded, either expressly or by necessary implication. Section 52 in juxtaposition to Section 14, when considered, the obvious inference would be that the principle of natural justice stands excluded. 5. Obviously for this reason, to satisfy ourselves whether the notification is founded upon any record and whether the reasons given in support thereof, are relevant to the issue, the record was summoned, and has been made available to us. 5. Obviously for this reason, to satisfy ourselves whether the notification is founded upon any record and whether the reasons given in support thereof, are relevant to the issue, the record was summoned, and has been made available to us. The note placed before the Governor also was placed. It is an elaborate note, pregnant with material details touching the maladministration of the University. From the record we have seen that the Govt. considered the above material and the Governor after due satisfaction had exercised the power under Section 52(1). Though the High Court held that the action under Section 52 is legislative action, it is obviously illegal in the light of the decision of this court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India Civil Appeal No.3645 of 1989, etc. decided on March 11, 1994. wherein thus court considered the presidential proclamation under Article 356 and held that the action is not beyond the kan of judicial review. The action under Section 52 is only statutory action, but subject to judicial review. However, the court would not sit in appeal over the opinion of the State Govt. The statute gives power to the State Government. The Governor exercised his power with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in issuing the notification under Section 52. Therefore, though it was a statutory notification, the condition precedent is that the satisfaction of the State Govt., i.e. the Governor, with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is of the situation mentioned in Section 52(1) and for reasons to be recorded therein, for better administration of the University, the State Govt. was satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the administration of the University could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam and for better administration whereof and to prevent the detriment to the interest of the University, the State Govt. issued the notification "for the reasons mentioned therein" and directed that the provisions mentioned therein under Sections 13 and 14 shall not apply. When those facts are present and the State Govt. issued the notification "for the reasons mentioned therein" and directed that the provisions mentioned therein under Sections 13 and 14 shall not apply. When those facts are present and the State Govt. were satisfied of the situation contemplated under Section 52(1), though the court may differ from that formation of satisfaction when the court is called upon in an appeal against the said satisfaction and may come to a different conclusion, we would not be justified to differ from the conclusion in our judicial review under Article 136 or of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Though the Academic Council etc. had been dissolved, the correctness thereof is not the subject matter of this special leave petition. We are not called upon to answer into that question. Therefore, from the records we are satisfied that the State Govt. were justified in issuing the notification under Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam." 20. The State Government may invoke the provisions of Section 44 on the basis of report or otherwise. If the situation has arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Government may issue notification for the reasons to be mentioned therein. The Government is only required to record the reasons only to the effect that the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Government is not required to record any adverse remark against the Vice Chancellor in the Notification. Even otherwise in Notification dated 18.09.2017 also reasons has been recorded to the effect that the situation has arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out on the basis of report and nothing adverse has been said against the petitioner. The order dated 19.09.2017 by which the petitioner was relieved from the post of Vice Chancellor is a consequential step due to deeming effect of sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Act of 2015. If the Notification under Section 44 (1) has been issued, the Vice Chancellor is bound to vacate his office. In the present case the same has been done. The petitioner gave his resignation immediately after issuance of Notification dated 18.09.2017 and vacated the office. The petitioner was aware about the Notification dated 18.09.2017, hence he immediately submitted his resignation without lodging any protest. In the present case the same has been done. The petitioner gave his resignation immediately after issuance of Notification dated 18.09.2017 and vacated the office. The petitioner was aware about the Notification dated 18.09.2017, hence he immediately submitted his resignation without lodging any protest. He has simply mentioned that in the resignation letter that due to his family and personal circumstances he is giving resignation with the request of acceptance and relieving. The petitioner has not denied his resignation dated 18.09.2017 given on 19.09.2017. Once the petitioner has given the resignation without any protest to the Notification dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure P/1), he is estopped from questioning the said notification by way of writ petition. The Government on the basis of material has recorded its satisfaction in the impugned order and issued impugned notification. This Court in the case of Dr. Bharat Chhaparwal (supra), has held that the Court cannot looked into sufficiency or insufficiency of the said material. 21. Hence, no interference is called for and the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.