Santosh Kumar Phaujdar, J. - (1.) IN this Writ Petition, an order of the State Govt. Uttar Pradesh, suspending the committee of management of the Sanatan Dharam Inter College, Etawah, has been challenged. The impugned orders are annexed to the present writ petition as annexure Nos. 6 and 7. On 12th May, 1994, the Joint Secretary in the Education Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh recorded an order under Section 16 -D of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) asking the manager of the aforesaid committee of management to show cause within 15 days as to why an authorised controller shall not be appointed to manage the affairs of the institution for reasons contained in the aforesaid order. On the same day, the same Joint Secretary recorded another order directing immediate suspension of the committee of the management of the institution and appointing the District Magistrate Etawah as the Authorised Controller with immediate effect, presumably under Section 16 -D(8) of the Act. The three respondents, namely, State of Uttar Pradesh, the District Magistrate, Etawah, as the Authorised Controller of the institution and the Director of Secondary Education had contested the petition and came up with counter affidavit in support of the action taken by the State Government.
(2.) THE admitted facts on which the parties based their case is that there is a parent body known as the Etawah Hindu Education Society having a registered constitution and scheme of administration. Under this scheme of administration, a committee of management is elected and once this committee is elected, the manager of the committee looks after the affairs of the running of the institution and this committee is supervised by the authorities under the Act. It is also an admitted fact that the last election of the managing Committee was held on 9.5.1993 and there was an enquiry into the matter under the directions of the District Magistrate and upon a writ petition by the present petitioner, i.e. the committee of management, an order was passed directing the District Magistrate not to proceed with the enquiry. It is further an undisputed fact that on 11.4.1994 a direction was issued under Section 16 -D(2) of the Act alleging financial irregularities by the managing committee and directing removal of the same within 15 days and to submit a reply. This was issued under the signature of the Additional Director of Secondary Education, U.P. to the Committee of management. The committee of management submitted its reply denying any financial irregularity and the reply was received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 9.5.1994 and also in the office of the Director, Secondary Education, U.P. on 15.5.1994. There is no record to indicate that the said proceeding before the Director of Education has come to an end or that there has been any report from the Director of Education to the State Government in regard to the alleged violations or irregularities mentioned in the orders. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the action of the State Government is mala fide and has been prompted by a sense of revenge as the managing committee successfully obtained a stay order against the enquiry conducted against its election. In reply, the respondents submitted that the State Govt. had every authority to take action when financial irregularities in the institution came to its knowledge and the provisions under the Act duly authorised the State to take such action.
(3.) THE law on this point may now be stated. Section 16 -D of the Act authorises the Director of Education of the State Government to cause inspection of a recognised institution from time to time and the Director is further authorised to direct the management of an institution to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. This Section further authorises the Director to refer a case to the Board of Intermediate Education for withdrawal of recognition of such institution for reasons as enumerated in the sub -section (3) of Section 16 -D of the Act, and, in the alternative, the Director may issue a show cause notice to the committee of management against appointment of an authorised controller for the institution by the State Government on the recommendation of the Director. Sub -section (5) of Section 16 -D of the Act reads as follows: - - (5) If on the receipt of information or otherwise, the State Government is of opinion that in relation to an institution the ground mentioned in clause (iii) or clause (v) of sub -section (3) exists, and that the interest of the institution calls for immediate action, it may, notwithstanding anything contained in the said sub -section, issue notice to the Management of such institution to show cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such notice why an Authorised Controller be not appointed in respect of such institution. The State Government under the above provision can take action only for violations as mentioned in clauses (iii) and (v) of sub -section (3) of Section 16 -D of the Act. Sub -section (8) of Section 16 -D reads as follows: - - (8) If the State Government is of opinion that immediate suspension of the Committee of Management is also necessary or expedient in the interest of the institution concerned, it may, while issuing notice under sub -section (5), by order and for reasons to be recorded, suspend the Committee of Management and make such arrangement as it thinks proper for managing the affairs of the institution pending the order that may subsequently be made under sub -section (6): Provided that the suspension shall not remain in force for more than six months from the date it becomes effective. Explanation I. - For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that in computing the period of time specified in sub -section (4) or sub -section (8), the time during which the operation of the order was suspended by the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution shall be excluded. Explanation II. - Nothing in sub -section (4) or sub -section (6) shall preclude the State Government from revoking of appointment of an Authorised Controller appointed under any of the said provisions. This sub -section empowers the State Government to take immediate action against an erring Committee of Management of an institution.;