B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) WHETHER opportunity of showing cause against the irregularities noticed in the working of the committee of Management of Mahabir Intermediate College, Bichiya Venkat, Varanasi, (For short the constitution), was afforded to the petitioners' and whether the impugned order dated 3 -8 -1990 (Annexure -23 to the petition), passed by the State Government contain reasons before appointing the Authorised Controller as required by Section 16D(6) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, (For short the Act); and whether the provisions of Section 5 of the U.P. Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974, (For short the Act of 1474), were mandatory, are the short questions that fall for determination in the present petition filed by the petitioners, the Manager and the Committee of a Management of the institution under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (sic) the prayer that the impugned order may be quashed. The factual matrix of the case is that the institution was a recognised institution under the provisions of the Act and the same is run by a registered society. Certain irregularities in the management of the institution were pointed out including the transfer of certain land of the institution without the prior written sanction of the Director of Education and a number of other financial irregularities were also brought to the notice of the Manager of the institution by the order dated 18.7.89 passed by the Additional Director of Education (Annexure -18 to the petition), and they were replied so by the petitioners in detail (vide Annexure -19 to the petition). After considering the reply of the petitioners a notice under Section 16D(3) of the Act was served on the petitioners indicating that after perusal of the reply sent by the petitioners (Annexure -19) it was found that there are a number of irregularities in the institution and that the institution was run in complete disregard of the provisions of the Act rules and the departmental instructions and government orders. A notice of show cause was served on the petitioners indicating as to why no action under Section 16D(4) of the Act may be taken and for that purpose recommendation may be made to the State Government. After considering the show cause reply of the petitioners, the impugned order dated 3.8.90 has been passed.
(2.) SRI G.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that opportunity of showing cause was not given to the petitioners and that the impugned order did not contain reasons as required by Section 16D(6) of the Act. He further urged that under the circumstances, the prior written sanction of the director of the Education was not required as envisaged by Section 5 of the Act of 1974 as the situation prevailing in the institution was of an unprecedented nature and in any case Section 5 of the Act of 1974 was directory in nature, hence even if no written sanction of the Director of Education was obtained, there was no irregularity, Reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. The Committee of Management, Arya Kanya intermediate College : AIR. 1973 458, and Committee of Management S.S.B.L. Intermediate College, Deoria, v. State of U.P. others, 1979 ACJ. 522. Sri R.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Sri Uridhi Narain Singh, added as respondent No. 6 by order of this court dated 5.10.90, passed on the application of impleadment urged that sufficient opportunity of showing cause was afforded and even after considering the explanation and reply of the petitioners it was found that there were a number of irregularities prevailing in the institution, hence the impugned order was passed recording sufficient reasons as required by Section 16D(4) of the Act; and that the provision of Section 5 of the Act of 1974 was mandatory. As no prior written sanction of the Director of Education was obtained, hence the sale deeds of the properties of the institution was illegal and after considering the cause shown by the Committee of Management, the State Government was satisfied that the grounds mentioned in Section 16D(3)(v) and (vi) of the Act existed and the affairs of the institution were being mismanaged and that the impugned order contains reasons and no ground for issuance of a writ of Certiorari was made out.
(3.) SRI M.C. Dwivedi, learned standing Counsel, however, adopted the arguments advanced by Sri R.N. Singh, Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6.;