ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition (s) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification dated 21-9-2016 (Annexure P/1) by which the State of Chhattisgarh in exercise of power conferred under Section 52 (1) of Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, “the Act, 1973”) has applied the provisions of Sections 13, 14, 23 to 25, 40, 47, 48, 54 and 68 as per modification specified in 3rd Schedule of the Act, 1973 from the date of publication of notification. The petitioner has also challenged notification dated 23-9-2016 (Annexure P/2) by which the Kuladhipati has removed the petitioner from the post of Kulpati Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, Jagdalpur with immediate effect. The petitioner has also challenged the notification dated 23-9-2016 (Annexure P/3) by which the State Government has appointed Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur as Kulpati of Bastar Vishwavidyalaya with immediate effect until further orders. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 2-9-2015 (Annexure P/4) by which Secretary, Department of Higher Education, has constituted a committee to conduct enquiry on the complaint made with regard to appointment of teaching staff in March 2015 by the Vice Chancellor of Bastar Vishwavidyalaya. Accordingly, Dr. S.J. Kekre Convener, Principal, Government College, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar and Dr. Anjani Kumar Shukla, member, Principal, Government D.V. Sanskrit P.G. College, Raipur, District Raipur have been directed to conduct enquiry and submit report within a period of seven days . By way of amendment, the petitioner has also challenged the appointment of Kulapati of the University by way of notification dated 24-8-2017 vide Annexure P/21. 3. The brief facts reflected from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as Professor of English in Nagaland University, Kohima in the pay scale of Rs.16,400-450-22,400/- plus usual allowances as admissible under the rules of the Central Government employees of the same grade posted in Nagaland, vide appointment order dated 22-7-2003 (Annexure P/4) for a probation for a period of one year as per the provisions of the CCS rules and his services are governed by the Statutes, Ordinances and Rules of the University which were are in force. The petitioner appointed as Vice Chancellor of Bastar University by the Chancellor of the State University and His Excellency Hon’ble the Governor of State of Chahttisgarh on 25-1- 2013 from the day of he assumed the charge. The petitioner appointed as Vice Chancellor of Bastar University by the Chancellor of the State University and His Excellency Hon’ble the Governor of State of Chahttisgarh on 25-1- 2013 from the day of he assumed the charge. It has been contended that since 2013 from the date of initial appointment as Vice Chancellor of Bastar University, Jagdalpur, the petitioner had faced many problems including various undisciplined conducts and irregularities committed by the then Registrar of Bastar University, as such he has brought to the kind notice of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 and also apprised them from time to time about such incidents which took place in the University. Thereafter, all of a sudden, respondent No.1 on 2-9-2015 constituted a Two-members Enquiry Committee to enquire about the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner. 4. The respondent No.3 being convener of the Enquiry Committee issued a letter vide dated 2-9-2015 to the petitioner directing him to submit the written statement with proof. In response to the letter dated 2-9-2015, the petitioner submitted its reply on 8-9-2015 wherein he has raised objection about constitution, authority and jurisdiction of the Enquiry Committee and also objected for not affording proper opportunity of hearing and prayed for supply of documents which have been placed before the Committee. It has also been contended that respondents No.3 & 4/Convener and the member of the Enquiry Committee are not only juniors in rank to the petitioner but also in the status, as both are the Principals of Government Colleges whereas the petitioner is working as Vice Chancellor of the Bastar University, as such they have no authority to call upon about the affairs of the Vice Chancellor. On merit, it has also been contended that the recruitment was done in a confidential manner and since then none of the qualified applicants has ever lodged any complaint against the process of recruitment, therefore, the said enquiry is uncalled for. It has also been stated that there are some allegations against the petitioner made by one Mr. Jairam Das, the then Registrar of University. It is also alleged that the Registrar has been filtering the internal and confidential matters to Mr. Jairam Das and media and all are working in nexus with media persons. It has also been stated that there are some allegations against the petitioner made by one Mr. Jairam Das, the then Registrar of University. It is also alleged that the Registrar has been filtering the internal and confidential matters to Mr. Jairam Das and media and all are working in nexus with media persons. It has also been contended that the petitioner has also made a representation on 29-10-2015 (Annexure P/8) to the Chancellor of the University for his kind intervention in the mater and also submitted various complains with regard to certain irregularities committed by the then Registrar to the Chancellor on 18-7-2014 and the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Higher Education, Raipur. The petitioner has also submitted complaints on 6-4-2015, 4-9-2015 and 27-5-2016 and 11-7-2016 to several authorities, but the same have not given effect. 5. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Section 10 of the Act, 1973, procedure for inspection of University and Colleges has been prescribed and similarly for conducting enquiry in respect of Vice Chancellor, Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Act, 1973 have been provided in the Act. He would further submit that Chapter-X of the Act, 1973 deals with emergency provisions and Section 51 provides that State Government to assume financial control of the University under certain circumstances and Section 52 of the Act, 1973 provides power of State Government to apply Act in modified form with a view to provide better administration of University in certain circumstances. It has also been contended that the Principal Secretary to the Governor vide its letter dated 21.03.2016 (Annexure P/11) has asked the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh to clarify what decision has been taken by the State regarding the complaint against the petitioner. It has also been directed that it may be clarified that the State Government is satisfied with regard to the complaint and no action is required. It has also been contended that though no circumstances are available still, all of a sudden vide memo dated 25-4-2016 (Annexure P/10) Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Chahttisgarh has issued show cause notice to the petitioner and sought clarification/reply to the so called alleged complaints /irregularities done by the petitioner which is in violation of the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act, 1973. These documents were given to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act on 30.08.2016 (Annexure P/11). 6. It has also been contended that the petitioner has submitted reply on 26.04.2015 (Annexure P/12) to the show cause notice dated 25-4- 2016 wherein he has asked for supply of enquiry report along with the annexures to enable him to submit reply within stipulated time period. However, the request of supply of documents was rejected on 26.04.2016 (Annexure P/13) the count that the facts are related to the office of Vice Chancellor of the University which can verify from the records of the University. Accordingly, he was directed to submit the reply within stipulated time period. Without supplying the material and enquiry report, he was compelled to file reply to the show cause notice dated 25-4-2016, which has been submitted by the petitioner on 04-05-2016 (Annexure P/14) reiterating the fact that no documents or enquiry report have been provided to the petitioner and prayed for supply of the same and thereafter he submitted reply to the show cause notice on 05.05.2016 (Annexure P/16). Along with reply, he has submitted documents related to appointment of teaching staffs, calling them for interview, order of the High Court of Allahabad, reply related to book purchase for library, regarding purchase of envelop, regarding construction of building, qualification and also annexed ordinance and conduct rules. Thereafter, the petitioner has also made a representation dated 7-6-2016 (Annexures P/17 and 16) reiterating non-supply of enquiry report. It has also been contended that the petitioner has also sought these documents under the Right to Information Act on 06.05.2016, 27.05.2016, 07.06.2016 which have been replied on 26.05.2016, 17.06.2016 contending that the files are pending before the higher authority and when it will be returned back, the documents will be given to him but without supplying the said documents, the impugned notification dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure P/1) applying the certain procedure of Act, 1973, notification dated 23.09.2016 (Annexure P/2) removing the petitioner from the post of Vice Chancellor of the University and notification dated 23.09.2016 (Annexure P/3) appointing the Commission of the Bastar Division, Jagdalpur has Kulpati of the said University by the Kuladhipati of Bastar University was issued. no consideration was made and the petitioner again was issued show cause notice dated 21-9-2016 (Annexure P/1). These notifications are being assailed by the petitioner by filing the instant writ petition. 7. no consideration was made and the petitioner again was issued show cause notice dated 21-9-2016 (Annexure P/1). These notifications are being assailed by the petitioner by filing the instant writ petition. 7. Respondents No. 1 and 5 have field their return mainly contending that the respondent/State has constituted Two-member enquiry committee who were senior most officers of the High Education Department and they are Principal of Post Graduate Colleges to enquire against the various allegations leveled against the petitioner. In pursuance of the said order, the said Committee conducted enquiry and also recorded statement of the petitioner along with relevant persons in the matter and submitted its report on 10-9-2015 wherein the petitioner was found guilty for various irregularities committed by him. On the basis of the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25-4-2016 asking him to explain the various irregularities and other acts done contrary to rules while performing his duty as Vice Chancellor of Bastar University. The Committee in its report has found various irregularities/wrongful acts done by the petitioner including violation of terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement for recruitment of teachers in the University and also including the members in the scrutiny committee who were themselves aspirants for the teaching posts in the University. The Committee has also found financial irregularities committed by the petitioner including non-compliance of the prevalent store purchase rules, over spending beyond budgetary provisions in the matter of library book purchase and construction works etc. The petitioner has submitted his explanation which was not found satisfactory. It has also been contended that even after transfer of the then Registrar of the University, there was no improvement in the overall administrative and academic atmosphere of the University rather deteriorated further so much so that the State had to invoke the provisions of Section 52 of the Act, 1973 for the purpose of creating a healthy academic and administrative atmosphere in the University. 8. 8. Respondent/State has also filed the report of the Committee (Annexure R/2) and would submit that there is no violation of principle of natural justice and the records available with the State clearly demonstrate that the University is not functioning property as per the provisions of the Act, therefore, to correct the things it was expedient in the interest of the University to issue notification on 21- 9-2016 under Section 51(2) of the Act, 1973, as such, principle of natural justice is not applicable in the given situation and It has also been contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary vs. State of MP and others, reported in 1994 SCC (4) 328 has considered the provisions of power and authority of the State Government to issue notification under Section 52(1) of the Act. In view of the above legal position, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the Intervener-Dr. Indu Anand has also moved an application to implead the Registrar as party to this case as certain allegations were levelled against her. 10. The respondent No.2/University has also filed their return supporting the stand taken by the State Government and has contended that there are number of serious complaints against the petitioner in respect of adopting suspicious appointment process, violation of the statutory norms in the University and many other illegalities, irregularities in the day to day functioning of the University have been done during tenure of the petitioner and the Committee so constituted has examined the truth of the facts mentioned there in the complaint of the case and found that these are correct. After due consideration with the matter, the respondent/State had found that in the larger interest of the public and for better administration of the University, it is necessary to exercise his power under Section 52 (1) of the Act, 1973. It is further contended that there are no grounds available to the petitioner to challenge the notification dated 21-9- 2016 (Annexure P/1) and 23-9-2016 (Annexure P/2 & P/3), therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. It is further contended that there are no grounds available to the petitioner to challenge the notification dated 21-9- 2016 (Annexure P/1) and 23-9-2016 (Annexure P/2 & P/3), therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder wherein he has stated that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and though he has submitted an application under Right to Information Act, the report has not been supplied to him. 12. This court vide order dated 3-7-2023 has observed as under:- “During midst of arguments, it is transpired that certain steps have been taken by the State before exercising its power under the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, but the counter filed by the State is silent on this issue. The State is directed to file an affidavit not below the rank of Additional Secretary regarding the proceedings initiated by them exercising the power under Section 52 of the Adhiniyam, 1973. The affidavit also consists whether procedure adopted by the State is in conformity with the Adhiniyam, 1973 or not as it is well settled that this Court can interfere in the decision making process not on the decision taken by the State.” 13. In compliance of the order, the Secretary, Higher Education Department has filed an affidavit on 20-7-2023 wherein they have stated in para 10 and 11 as under:- “10. That, after examination of material records, the inference made was that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the University of which the petitioner was vice-chancellor cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1973 without detriment to the interest of the University and therefore the matter to invoke the provisions of Section 52 of Adhiniyam, 1973 was put up for administrative sanction. After the administrative sanction to invoke Section 52 was obtained, the matter was further referred to the Coordination, headed by Hon'ble Chief Minister for consent, through Chief Secretary of the State Government. 11. That, it is humbly submitted that on 20.09.2016, the Coordination had given its consent to invoke provisions of section 52, whereupon the department of higher education proceeded to issue notification to this effect, for its publication in the official gazette which was subsequently published on 21.09.2016. 11. That, it is humbly submitted that on 20.09.2016, the Coordination had given its consent to invoke provisions of section 52, whereupon the department of higher education proceeded to issue notification to this effect, for its publication in the official gazette which was subsequently published on 21.09.2016. It is pertinent to mention herein that in the meantime, the Kuladhipati's office had also written D.O. letter dated 21.03.2016 to the Chief Secretary seeking information about the action taken by the Government on the basis of letter dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure R/4) of Kuladhipati's office, as a period of 3 months time has already lapsed. Furthermore, letter dated 12.09.2016, on the same line as stated above, was written to Department of Higher Education by the Kuladhipati's office, which is filed along with as ANNEXURE R/9. That, it is most humbly submitted that after the issuance of Notification dated 21.09.2016 by the State Government, the Kuladhipati, in exercise of powers conferred under modified section 13 an 14 read with sub- section 3 of section 52 of Adhiniyam, 1973, issued a notification dated 23.09.2023 whereby Commissioner, Bastar was appointed as kulpati” 14. The petitioner has filed rebuttal affidavit on 08.08.2024 wherein he has stated that the enquiry implies to investigate the matter from various process in order to find out the truth but no procedure to find out truth has been followed by the respondents. He would further submit that the Karnataka High Court in case of Chancellor of University Vs. Professor H.B. Walikar has held that before taking action against the Vice-Chancellor, the State should request to Kuladhipati to conduct enquiry. Whereas, in the present case also the State has conducted enquiry and they have sent the report to His Excellency the Governor. Thus, there is a procedure lapses which is vital one and goes to the root of the cause, as such, the entire proceeding deserves to the set aside. 15. Thereafter the matter was listed before this court on 22-3-2023. This Court had directed the State to call for the record from the office of Chancellor of the University with regard to decision taken for removal of the petitioner from service. In pursuance of the direction given by this court on 1-12-2023,. the State has submitted the record which consists of 427 pages. This Court had directed the State to call for the record from the office of Chancellor of the University with regard to decision taken for removal of the petitioner from service. In pursuance of the direction given by this court on 1-12-2023,. the State has submitted the record which consists of 427 pages. This record would reflect that a complaint was made by the then Registrar of the University against the petitioner wherein certain financial irregularities were alleged like purchase of envelopes, excess construction in the residence of the Vice Chancellor, appointment of co-relatives of Chancellor as daily wage drivers, purchase of books for Library to the tune of Rs.58,00,000/-, illegal constitution of study board of the University, interference in the valuation of answer-sheet of the university, granting advantage to the private colleges contrary to the rules, to conduct Ph.D. programme de hors the rules, irregularities in the recruitment on the post of teaching post, expenditure on visitors. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint made the Registrar, the complaint was placed before the Hon’ble Governor wherein it has been directed to discuss with Vice-Chancellor of the University and he was directed to submit written information by 07.04.2015. The petitioner submitted reply to the said complaint contending that the Registrar does not follow the rules, conduct rules and does not follow the order of the Vice-chancellor and he used to make direct correspondence with the Governor House with intention to destroy the reputation of the University and also requested for her transfer. The petitioner submitted reply to the said complaint contending that the Registrar does not follow the rules, conduct rules and does not follow the order of the Vice-chancellor and he used to make direct correspondence with the Governor House with intention to destroy the reputation of the University and also requested for her transfer. Thereafter, on 15.06.2015, the office of the His-Excellency has sought information from the higher education department and the Secretary, higher education department vide its memo dated 27.11.2015 has submitted report of the Committee which was constituted to enquire into the matter and the office of the His Excellency Governor of the State has recorded its finding on 01.12.2015, which reads as under:- ^^1- takp izfrosnu eas dqyifr cLrj fo'ofo|ky; ds }kjk vkfFkZd vfu;ferrk fd;s tkus] takp&lfefr dks fo'ofo|ky; ds vUrxZr fu;qfDr ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha djk;k tkuk] 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha djk;s tkus rFkk vU; vkjksi izFke n`"V;k lgh ik;k x;k gSA 2- cLrj fo'ofo|ky; ds vUrxZr iz'kklfud O;oLFkk,a Hkh lqpk: :i ls lapkfyr ugha gks jgh gSA 3- cLrj fo'ofo|ky; ds ys[kkvksa dh takp egkys[kkdkj ls djk;s tkus] fo'ofo|ky; ds }kjk 'kS{kf.kd inksa dh fu;qfDr izfdz;k fujLr fd;s tkus ,oa dqyifr ds fo:) Hkh fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk izLrkfor fd;k x;k gSA** 16. Thereafter office of His Excellency Governor has also recorded its finding that the action can be initiated under Sections 51 & 52 of the Act, 1973 and has forwarded the report to the Government on 27-11- 2015 which reads as under:- ^^2- mYys[kuh; gS fd takp izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij dqyifr cLrj fo'ofo|ky; ds }kjk vkfFkZd vfu;ferrk fd;s tkus] takp lfefr dks fo'ofo|ky; ds vUrxZr fu;qfDr ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha djk;k tkuk] 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha djk;k tkuk] 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha djk;s tkus rFkk vU; vkjksi izFke n`"V;k lgh ik;k x;k gSA 3- cLrj fo'ofo|ky; ds vUrxZr iz'kklfud O;oLFkk,a Hkh lqpk: :i ls lapkfyr ugha gks jgh gS rFkk blls 'kklu dh Nfc [kjkc gks jgh gSA 4- vr% vkns'kkuqlkj cLrj fo'ofo|ky; ds ys[kkvksa dh takp egkys[kkdkj ls djk;s tkus] fo'ofo|ky; ds }kjk 'kS{kf.kd inksa dh fu;qfDr izfdz;k fujLr fd;s tkus ,oa dqyifr ds fo:) Hkh fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk izLrkfor djrs gq, nksuksa takp izfrosnu ewyr% layXu izsf"kr gSA** 17. The record further reflects that another complaint was lodged against the petitioner by the then MLA of Bastar on 20.12.2015 and also requested for removal of the Vice-Chancellor which was directed to be forwarded to the State Government, but no action has been taken by the State Government, thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25-4-2016 by the Secretary, Higher Education Department and the petitioner has submitted reply, also requested for personal hearing and also requested to conduct enquiry from three members committee consisting of two vice-chancellor and one higher officer in place of officers of higher education department. 18. On 21-6-2016 Secretary to His Excellency the Governor has sent complete file to the State Government in accordance with law against the petitioner but no decision has been taken, therefore, a information was sought on 01.09.2016 and thereafter the State Government after getting recommendation of Hon’ble Chief Minister and Minister of Higher Education, the notification under Section 52(1) of the Act, 1973 has been issued by the State Government and thereafter the Chancellor of the University has issued notification on 23.09.2016 (Annexure P/2) removing the petitioner and subsequent appointment of Commissioner, Bastar Division as Vice-Chancellor of the University vide Annexure P/3. 19. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Pankaj Singh and Mr. Hari Shankar Patel, counsel for the petitioner reiterating the factual matrix would submit that in order to circumvent the trappings of Section 14 of the Act, 1973 which envisages the compliance of principles of natural justice, respondent State resorted to Section 52 solely to depose the petitioner of his position. Thus, the application of Section 52 of the Act, 1973 is against the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Prof. Narendra Kumar Gouraha vs. State of MP, reported in AIR 1999 MP 122 and would submit that there is difference between Section 52 and 14 of the Act, 1973 and two distinct actions contemplated one against the misdeeds and misconduct of the Vice Chancellor for his removal and the other of invoking emergency provisions under Section 52 against the University as a whole. He has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. He has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary vs. State of MP, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 328 and would submit that the State has involved the drastic provision contained in Section 52 of the Act, 1973 in absence of any report from Kuladhipati/Chancellor which is a pre-requisite and an embargo in built in the provision itself. Admittedly, in the present case at no point of time Kuladhipati/Chancellor being the Governor of State of Chhattisgarh and the top- most functionary of the University in terms of Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Act, 1973 had expressed any opinion in respect to the present cause or submitted any report to respondent State in the said transaction. He would further submit that in terms of Section 10, power of causing inspection into the affairs of the University vested with the Chancellor and admittedly no inspection of whatever nature was never conducted by the Chancellor or on the instructions of Chancellor in relation to the present subject, as such he would submit that exercise of power under emergency clause, deserves to be quashed by this Court. To substantiate his submission, he has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of S.C. Bharat vs. Hari Vinayak Pataskar, reported in 1962 MP 63 and Hardwari Lal vs. G.D. Tapase, reported in AIR m1982 P & H 439. He would further submit that the findings rendered by the Committee would be of no assistance to respondent State as the said findings were qua petitioner and thus, falls short of threshold fixed for invocation of Section 52 of the Act, 1973. He would further submit that invoking power under Section 52 of the Act, 1973 by the State in absence of report or otherwise is beyond stipulation. He has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma vs. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, reported in 1998 (3) SCC 45 and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 20. On the other hand, Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned Govt. He has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma vs. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, reported in 1998 (3) SCC 45 and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 20. On the other hand, Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent/State apart from reiterating the factual matrix of the case, would submit that before invoking exigency clause under Section 52 of the Act, 1973, the State has taken due care to reach to the conclusion that such situation exists in Bastar University, as such, it is expedient to invoke such emergency clause and to remove the petitioner from the post of Vice Chancellor, Bastar University. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner though has alleged malafides/motives but has failed to either implead any particular person as a party to the writ petition or has made any such pleading against any particular individual alleging malafides. It is well settled principle of law that for establishing malafides specific pleadings against specific person is necessary. Thus, the grounds raised by the petitioner in support of his writ petition fail to give a reason for indulgence of this Hon'ble Court. To substantiate his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1994 (4) SCC 328 and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No 318 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh another vs. Dr. Rohini Prasad) decided on 6-3-2022 and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 21. Learned counsel for the intervener has also supported the stand taken by the State Government. 22. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost satisfaction. 23. From the above stated factual and legal position, the point to be determined by this court is whether the State Government was justified in invoking Section 52 of the Act, 1973 ignoring the provisions contained in Section 14 (3) which provides mechanism for relinquishment of the office of Vice-Chancellor by following procedure as provided in Section 14 (4) of the Act, 1973 which provides reasonable opportunity of hearing to show cause notice. 24. 24. To appreciate the point cropped up in the matter, it is expedient for this court to extract Sections 13, 14, and 52 of the Act, 1973 which read as under:- “13. Appointment of Kulpati- (1) The Kulapati shall be appointed by the Kuladhipati from a panel of not less than three persons recommended by the committee constituted under sub-section (2) or sub section(6); Provided that if the person or persons approved by the Kuladhipati out of those recommended by the committee are not willing to accept the appointment, the Kuladhipati may call for fresh recommendations from such committee: **Provided also that the first Kulapati of each University specified in part II of the second schedule shall be appointed by the Kuladhipati after Consultation with the State Government. (2) The Kuladhipati shall appoint a committee consisting of the following persons, namely: (i) one person elected by the Executive Council : **(ii) One Person nominated by the Chairman of the University Grants Commission (iii) one person nominated by the Kuladhipatl. The Kuladhipati shall appoint one of the three persons to be the Chairman of the Committee.. (3) For constituting the committee under sub-section (2) the Kuladhipati shall, six months before the expiry of the term of the Kulapati, call upon the Executive Council and the Chairman of the University Grants Commission to choose their nominees and if any or both of them fail to do so within one month or the receipt of the Kuladhipati's communication in this regard, the Kuladhipatl may, further nominate anyone or both the persons, as the case may be. (4) No person who is connected with the University or any college shall be elected or nominated on the committee under sub-section (2). (5) The committee shall submit the panel within six weeks from the date of its constitution or such further time not exceeding four weeks as may be extended by the Kuladhipati. (6) If for any reasons the committee constituted under subsection (2) Fails to submit the panel within the period specified in sub-section (5), the Kuladhipati shall constitute another committee consisting of three persons, not-connected with the University or any college one of whom shall be designated as the Chairman. The committee so constituted shall submit a panel of three persons within a period of six weeks or such shorter period as may be specified, from the date of its constitution. The committee so constituted shall submit a panel of three persons within a period of six weeks or such shorter period as may be specified, from the date of its constitution. (7) If the committee constituted under subsection (6) fails to submit the panel within the period specified therein the Kuladhipati may appoint any person whom he deems fit, to be the Kulpati. 14. Emoluments and Conditions of Service of Kulapati, Term of Office of and Vacancy in the Office of Kulpati. (1) The Kulapati shall be a whole-time salaried officer of the University and his emoluments and other terms and conditions of service shall be prescribed by the Statutes. (2) The Kulapati shall hold office for a term of four years and shall not be eligible for appointment for more than two terms. Provided that notwithstanding the expiry of his term he shall continue to hold office until his successor is appointed and enter upon his office but this period shall not in any case exceed six months. (2-a) The person holding office of the Kulapati in any University immediately before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1988, shall continue to hold his office till the expiry of his term of office notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso to subsection (2). (3) If at any time upon representation made or otherwise and after making such enquiries as may be deemed necessary, it appears to the Kuladhipati that the Kulapati : (i) has made default in performing any duty imposed on him by or under this Act; or (ii) has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the University; or (iii) is incapable of managing the affairs of the University the Kuladhipati may, notwithstanding the fact that the terms of office of the Kulapati has not expired, by an order in writing stating the reasons therein, require the Kulapati to relinquish his office as from such date as may be specified in the order. (4) No order under sub-section (3) shall be passed unless the particulars of the grounds on which such action is propose to be taken communicated to the Kulapati and he is given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order. (4) No order under sub-section (3) shall be passed unless the particulars of the grounds on which such action is propose to be taken communicated to the Kulapati and he is given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order. (5) As from the date specified in the order under sub-section (3), the Kulapati shall be deemed to have relinquished the office and the office of the Kulapati shall fall vacant. **(6) In the event of the occurrence of any vacancy including a temporary vacancy in the office of the Kulapati by reason of his death, resignation, leave, illness or otherwise, the Rector and if no Rector has been appointed or if the Rector is not available, the Dean of any faculty or the Senior most Professor of University teaching department nominated by the Kuladhipati for that purpose shall act as the Kulapati until the date on which the Kulapati appointed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (7) of Section 13 enters or re-enters as. the case may be upon his office: Provided that the arrangement contemplated in this sub section shall not continue for a period of more than six months. 52. Powers of State Government to Apply Act in Modified form with a View to Provide 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 section 13, 14, 20 to 25, 40, 47, 48, 54 and 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 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 section 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 modification 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 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 section 13 and 14 as modified shall exercise the powers and perform the 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 (5) Before the expiration of the period of operation of the notification or immediately as early as practicable, thereafter, the Kulapati shall take steps to constitute the Court, Executive Council and Academic Council in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as unmodified and the Court, Executive Council and Academic Council as so constituted shall begin to function on the date immediately following the date of expiry if 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 Court, Executive Council and Academic Council are not constituted before the expiration of the period of operation of the notification, the Kulapati shall on such expiration, exercise the powers of each of these authorities subject to prior approval of the Kuladhipati till the Court Executive Council or Academic Council or as the case may be, is so constituted.” 25. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that invocation of emergency clause under Section 52 of the Act, 1973 is to frustrate Section 14 of the Act, 1973 as it requires compliance of principle of natural justice. To substantiate his submission he has referred to the paragraphs 28 and 31 of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Narendra Kumar Gouraha (supra) which read as under:- “28. Power under Section 14 has been conferred for the purpose of removal of the Vice-Chancellor on proved misconduct but after giving him full opportunity of hearing. The removal of a Vice-Chancellor which can be made only after following principles of natural justice under Section 14 of the Act cannot be achieved by resort to the emergency provisions under Section 52 against the whole University of which Vice- Chancellor is one of the officers. Where the State Government as a repository of power under Section 52 of the Act, exercise that power for a purpose alien to that for which it was granted it would be misuse of that power for an oblique or collateral purpose. Where the State Government as a repository of power under Section 52 of the Act, exercise that power for a purpose alien to that for which it was granted it would be misuse of that power for an oblique or collateral purpose. If the purpose for which the power can legitimately be exercised are specified by statute and those purposes are construed as being exhaustive, an exercise of that power in order to achieve a different and collateral object will be pronounced as invalid. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 1, IV Edn., para 60). All statutory powers must be exercised in good faith and for the purpose for which they were granted. The repository of power must have regard to relevant considerations and not allow itself to be influenced by irrelevant considerations. It must act fairly and reasonably. 31. Facts and material which are relevant for taking action under Section 10 or 14 of the Act cannot be utilised obliquely to obviate or by-pass observance of formalities contained therein by resorting to extraordinary emergency power under Section 52 of the Act. Exercise of such emergency power at the instance of the State Government is a serious inroad on the independence of the University and has in fact been counter-productive in demoralising the various officers and functionaries of the University. Permitting misuse of extraordinary power under Section 52 of the Act 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. It would deter competent academicians from accepting assignments and posts in the University and thus seriously harm the cause of higher education.” 26. Learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner would further submit that since no opportunity of hearing was given by the State invoking Section 52 of the Act, 1973, the entire action of the respondent/State by issuing notifications (Annexure P/1, P/2 and P/3) is bad-in-law and would submit that the petitioner is entitled to be restored to his original position of Vice Chancellor of the University with all the consequential benefits. 27. The aforesaid submission made by learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned State counsel. 27. The aforesaid submission made by learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned State counsel. Learned State counsel would submit that the State has rightly applied Section 52 of the Act, 1973 as emergent situation has cropped up as management of University became failure and when the action was taken against the petitioner by granting an opportunity which was exhausted by him and has submitted his reply to it. The said reply is also filed before this Court which would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities and he has also participated in the proceedings. The record of the case would show that copy of enquiry report was also given to the petitioner. This report was the material which has been considered by the office of His Excellency the Governor and accordingly, the report was sent to the State Government for invoking Sections 51 & 52 of the Act, 1973. Thereafter the State has considered for invoking the provisions of Section 52 of the Act, 1973, as such the principle of natural justice can be excluded by express statutory provision or by necessary statutory implication. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary (supra) has considered the provisions of Sections 13 and 52 of the Act, 1973 and has held in para 4 and 5 as under:- “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. 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 Government 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 supplements 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. 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 Government 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 India¹ wherein this Court considered the presidential proclamation under Article 356 and held that the action is not beyond the ken 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 Government. 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 Government. 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 Government, 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 Government 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 Government 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 Government 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 Articles 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 enter into that question. Therefore, from the records we are satisfied that the State Government were justified in issuing the notification under Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam.” 28. Hon’ble Division of this Court has also considered exclusion of principle of natural justice while exhausting the powers conferred under Sections 52 of the Act, 1973 by the State Government in Writ Appeal No. 318 of 2022 (State of Chhattisgarh & another vs. Dr. Rohni Prasad, decided on 6-7-2022 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has observed in para 25 to 28 as under:- “ “25. In the case of Dr. Rohni Prasad, decided on 6-7-2022 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has observed in para 25 to 28 as under:- “ “25. In the case of Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary (supra), Section 52(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, which is parl materia with the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyan, 1973, had fallen for consideration. In Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that by operation thereof the applicability of Sections 13 and 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 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 Web required to vacate his office. 26. The contention advanced that the petitioner therein was entitled to be afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the Impugned Bijanur notification under Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and that the order passed in violation thereof offends the principles of natural justice was negated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that Section 52 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 engrafts an exception thereto, and therefore, by necessary implication, the application of principles of natural justice has been excluded. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in view of the statutory animation, the contention that the petitioner is entitled to a notice and an opportunity before taking action under Section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 would be self-defeating. Considering Section 52 in juxtaposition to Section 14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the obvious inference would be that the principle of natural justice stands excluded. 28. Therefore, setting aside the notifications dated 03.01.2020 and 06.01.2020 by the learned Single Judge on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before issuance of the notifications cannot be sustained.” 29. 28. Therefore, setting aside the notifications dated 03.01.2020 and 06.01.2020 by the learned Single Judge on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before issuance of the notifications cannot be sustained.” 29. From bare perusal of Section 52 of the Act, 1973, it is quite vivid that the satisfaction can be arrived at by the State while invoking the provisions of Section 52, 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 which clearly indicates that situation has to be satisfied by the State Government and what will be satisfaction, it is for the State to record its finding whether the State was satisfied with the material placed before it. The record of the case would also reflect that the Secretary to His Excellency the Governor has also forwarded the entire enquiry report and on the basis of the report, His Excellency the Governor has directed the State Government to examine the matter on 27.11.2015 with sincerity and if it is found that there was mismanagement of the University and financial irregularities causing dis-reputation of institution, administration arrangements and financial implications are not preserved, the State Government may proceed as per Sections 51 and 52 of the Act, 1973 and thereafter sent another letter dated 21-3-2016 wherein His Excellency the Governor has asked the State Government to inform what action they have taken in pursuance of the earlier letter issued by the office of His Excellency the Governor. This exercise clearly demonstrates that the State Government was satisfied that the situation has arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried with in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1973. There was material for recording of satisfaction with the State and what will be the satisfaction of the Stte Government is subjective satisfaction and cannot be reassessed by this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There was material for recording of satisfaction with the State and what will be the satisfaction of the Stte Government is subjective satisfaction and cannot be reassessed by this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hon’ble the Supreme Court while examining the provisions under Article 356 of the Constitution of India has examined the issue of subjective satisfaction of His Excellency the President of India in case of S.B. Bommai vs. Union of India, reported in 1994 (3) SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 214 and 216 as under:- “214. The satisfaction of the President that a President that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution is founded normally upon the report from the Governor or any other information which the President has in possession, in other words, "the Council of Ministers", "the President" reached a satisfaction. Normally, the report of the Governor would form basis. It is already stated that the Governor's report should contain material facts relevant to the satisfaction reached by the President. In an appropriate case where the Governor was not inclined to report to the President of the prevailing situation contemplated by Article 356, the President may otherwise have information through accredited channels of communications and have it in their custody and on consideration of which the President would reach a satisfaction that a situation has arisen in which the Government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions. 216. To test the satisfaction reached by the President there is no satisfactory criteria for judicially discoverable and manageable standards that what grounds prevailed with the President to reach his subjective satisfaction. There may be diverse, varied and variegated considerations for the President to reach the satisfaction. The question of satisfaction is basically a political one, practically it is an impossible question to adjudicate on any judicially manageable standards. Obviously the Founding Fathers entrusted that power to the highest executive, the President of India, with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The satisfaction of the President being subjective, it is not judicially discoverable by any manageable standards and the court would not substitute their own satisfaction for that of the President. Obviously the Founding Fathers entrusted that power to the highest executive, the President of India, with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The satisfaction of the President being subjective, it is not judicially discoverable by any manageable standards and the court would not substitute their own satisfaction for that of the President. The President's satisfaction would be the result of his comprehending in his own way the facts and circumstances relevant to the satisfaction that the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. There may be wide range of situations and sometimes may not be enumerated, nor can there be any satisfactory criteria, but on a conspectus of the facts and circumstances the President may reach the satisfaction that the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction is not justiciable on any judicially manageable standards. Moreover, the executive decision of the President receives the flavour of the legislative approval after both Houses of Parliament have approved the Proclamation and executive satisfaction ceases to be relevant. Article 100 of the Constitution protects the parliamentary approval from assailment on any ground. The judicial review becomes unavailable. That apart a writ petition under Article 226, if is maintainable to question the satisfaction, equally a declaration that a situation has arisen in the State to clamp emergency or to declare President's rule by judicial order is permissible and cannot be wished away. Could it be done.” 30. Considering the aforesaid well settled position and further considering the entire record of the case and proceedings, I am of the opinion that this writ petition has no merit. Accordingly, the writ petition (s) being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 31. Pending interlocutory applications including intervention application, if any, stand closed.