- (1.) THE petitioner is an edu cational institution for teaching and tra ining girls for the High School Exami nation of the Intermediate Education Board. The scheme of Administration made under Section 16-A of the Inter mediate Education Act relating to the petitioner institution as approved by the Director, provided in paragraph 20 what is described as "Emergency Provision" as follows:- (1) When the State Government is of the opinion that circumstances have arisen which have rendered it impos sible to carry on properly the administration of the school/college in the normal manner it may appoint an administra tor. Provided that no such Administra tor shall be appointed except: (a) on the recommendation of the Committee, or (b) on the recommendation of the Director of Education and after allow ing the President an opportunity to submit a written explanation against the said recommendation. (2) Upon such appointment being made the Committee and all the office bearers shall stand suspended and all their powers and functions shall vest in the Administrator except that he will not have the authority to take loan for or on behalf of the Society or School/ College or to transfer any irremovable property thereof." The remaining sub-paragraphs of para graph 20 are not material.
(2.) PURPORTING to act under the said paragraph 20 the State Govern ment issued a notice to the President of the petitioner institution on the 29th April, 1969, calling upon him to show cause why an administrator should not be appointed. The notice set out fifteen charges of mismanagement of the institution which led to the issue of the notice. At this time a writ petition filed by the petitioner institution chal lenging the order withholding the grant-in-aid to the institution was pending in the High Court, suits insti tuted by some teachers of the institu tion were also pending in a subordinate Civil Court. It is the petitioner's case that the writ petition as well as the Civil suits involved questions which had relevance to the charges mentioned in the notice. The petitioner institution wrote to the State Government on the 14th May, 1969, that as many common questions arose in the aforesaid pend ing litigations and in the charges set out in the notice, he apprehended that he would be committing contempt of court if he offered comments and ex planations of the charges and hence he should not compelled to reply to the notice. In the two Annexures to the representation, a table was attached containing a comparison of the allega tions the charges as well as the aver ments made in the pending writ peti tion and the pending civil suits. The State Government informed the peti tioner on the 14th November, 1969, that the pending litigation did not in any way preclude the President from giv ing explanation to the charges in the notice. The Civil suit filed by the teachers was withdrawn on the 14th November, 1969, but a fresh suit was filed by another teacher on the 18th November, 1969. On the 24th Novem ber, 1969, the President again wrote to the State Government pointing out the aforesaid facts and asking for fifteen days' time to file a reply which he was not prepared to do due to fear of con tempt of Court. No reply was sent by the State Government to this represen tation but on the 8th June, 1970. the State Government made an order ap pointing an Administrator. The petition impugns the ap pointment of the Administrator on two grounds, namely, that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to show cause against the appointment as pro vided under proviso (b) to paragraph 20 (1) of the Scheme of Administration and that the said paragraph 20 is ul tra vires if it is construed as provid ing for appointment of an administra tor in the event of mismanagement of the institution.
(3.) THE first ground does not impress me. By his representation dated the 14th November, 1969, the President of the institution asked for fifteen days' time to file a reply to the notice if the reply did not amount to contempt of court. A grievance was made that the State Government did not inform the President whether time was or was not granted to file the reply as prayed. It will be observed that the final order of the State Government appointing the Administrator was made on the 8th June, 1970 i. e., nearly seven months after the representation of the Presi dent. Even if the President did not receive intimation that time was or was not granted, it was open to the Presi dent to send his explanation as stated by him. He had ample time to make his submissions and it cannot be said that he did not have adequate opportu nity to show cause against the notice.;