( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE Director of Education, government of U. P. issued on 2/4/1985 a show-cause notice to the respondents under Section 16-D (2 of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short "the Act") calling upon the respondent to remove the defects and deficiencies found in the Inspection Reports and Audit Reports given by the Assistant Examiner, Local Fund Accounts and Audit Officer made during 3/10/1982, 7/10/1980 and 1/12/1981 to 10/12/1981 respectively. Since they had not been complied with notice under Ss. (3 thereof was issued on 9/1/1986 calling upon the Management for the reasons mentioned therein, thus:

"it is evident from above that there are serious irregularities in the school and hence notice is given under Section 16-D (3 of Intermediate Education Act. You are requested to remove these irregularities and submit your report in triplicate to District Inspector of Schools, one copy direct to this office and one copy to Deputy Director of Education, Bareilly within 15 days of the receipt of this letter. If your reply is not received within the time prescribed, it will be considered that you have nothing to say and further action will be taken in the absence of your reply. "pursuant thereto, the respondents had furnished the explanation by his letter dated 11/2/1986. The government on consideration of the report submitted by the Director, found that the respondents had committed irregularities and for special and exceptional reasons, mentioned therein the Institution needed to be taken over for better management and to appoint an Authorised Controller for its management. Accordingly, an order came to be made on 19-7-1986. The respondents filed a writ petition in the High court and the order was suspended. When the writ petition came up for hearing, it was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, another Writ Petition No. 11217 of 1986 was filed and the court stayed the taking over by the Management. The writ petition was, ultimately, allowed by the High court on 7/8/1992. Thus this appeal by special leave.

( 3 ) THE High court evaluated the evidence and held that the government had not applied their mind to the facts and the charges have not been established by a reasoned order and that, therefore, the order was vitiated by manifest error apparent on the face of the record. On that basis, it quashed the impugned order.

( 4 ) THE question, therefore, is whether the High court was right in its conclusion that the impugned government order was vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record. Section 16-D (3 provides, inter alia, thus:

"the Director on receipt of the information or otherwise, if is satisfied that the Committee has substantially diverted, misapplied or misappropriated the property of the institution to its detriment or the affairs of the institution are being otherwise managed (sic mis-managed ). "

( 5 ) WHERE the Committee of Management of the Institution fails to show cause within the time allowed under Ss. (3 or within such extended time as the Director may from time to time allow, or where the Director is, afterconsidering the cause shown by the Committee of Management, satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in Ss. (3 exists, he may, recommend to the State government to appoint an Authorised Controller for that institution, and thereupon, the State government may, by order, for reasons to be recorded, authorise any person (hereinafter referred to as the Authorised Controller) to take over, for such period not exceeding two years, as may be specified, the Management of such institution and its properties. Under Ss. (8, if the State government is of opinion it may suspend the Management of the Institution. Under Explanation I, for removing doubts in that behalf, the statute declared that in computing the period of time specified in Ss. (4 or sub- section (6, the time during which the operation of the order was suspended by the High court in exercise of the powers under Article 22