Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have sought the quashing of the order dated 25th June, 2010 issued by the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 16 -D(4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act ') by which an Authorised Controller has been appointed to take over the Management of the petitioner -Institution.
(2.) THE records of the writ petition indicate that even earlier an order dated 11th December, 2009 was passed by the State Government under Section 16 -D(4) of the Act for appointment of an Authorised Controller and this order was assailed by the present petitioner No. 2 Rajiv Kumar in Writ Petition No. 3434 of 2010 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 27th January, 2010. The order is quoted below: The petitioners have sought the quashing of the order dated 11th December, 2009 issued by the State Government under Section 16 -D(4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by which an Authorised Controller has been appointed to take over the Management of the petitioner -Institution. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the said order deserves to be set aside as not only does it not record any reason as are required to be recorded under Section 16 -D(4) of the Act but it also does not take into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 16 -D(3) of the Act. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Caveator state that it may not be necessary to file the counter affidavit and the petition may be disposed of at this stage. A perusal of the impugned order does indicate that no reason has been recorded by the State Government for appointing the Authorised Controller. Under Section 16 -D(4) of the Act the State Government was required to give reasons. The order dated 11th December, 2009 which has been impugned in the present petition, therefore, cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 11th December, 2009 also mentions that the petitioners have not filed any reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 16 -D(3) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the averments made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition states that in fact the reply was submitted by the petitioners which was received in the office on 16th September, 2009 but it has wrongly been recorded in the order that no reply was submitted by the petitioners. The order dated 11th December, 2009 is, accordingly, set aside. The State Government may pass a fresh order under Section 16 -D(4) of the Act after giving reasons. While passing the order, the State Government shall also consider whether the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 16 -D(3) of the Act. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. A perusal of the order dated 25th June, 2010 shows that a reply was filed by the petitioner pursuant to the notice issued under Section 16 -D(3) of the Act but all that has been stated in the impugned order is that the matter was re -considered and it was found that the Management was guilty of financial irregularities.
(3.) SRI Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order deserves to be set aside as no reason has been given as to how the Management was guilty of financial irregularities and only a bald statement has been made without consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner.;