K. Vinod Chandran, CJ. – The appeal is against the judgment in the writ petition which refused interference to the Ad-hoc Committee constituted for the management of an affiliated college. The appellant’s contention was that under Statute 32(2)(i), the Adhoc Committee has to be constituted by the Syndicate and shall only be of five members. The learned Single Judge found that Section 64 of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 (For brevity the ‘Act’) stands in conflict with the aforesaid Statute and hence, the provision in the Act has to prevail. The provisions in the Act also speaks of an Ad-hoc Committee of seven persons, the constitution of which is by the Vice-Chancellor; who was so empowered. The constitution was held to be perfectly in order, warranting no interference.

2. When the appeal was taken up on the last day, we were not convinced about the ground raised, since it is a trite principle that the Act under which the statutes are framed, would have prevalence over the statute framed, in the event of a conflict.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent and the University also vehemently pointed out that the writ petition was a sponsored affair and the contention raised was against the 7th respondent, who was appointed as an educationist, who was co-opted by the Governing Body; who has already been replaced. It is also pointed out that the appellant has no locus standi and his contention with respect to his being the Secretary of a Teachers Association is prevaricating, since he asserted in the writ petition that it was a state wide association, which, at the stage of appeal, is stated to be only a district-wise association. He has not even stated how he is concerned with the affairs of the College; as a student or a teacher, especially since it is not a writ petition filed as a public interest litigation. The 8th respondent laments that the protracted litigation put unnecessary hurdles in the functioning of the College; which was not even properly impleaded in the writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the University and the 8th respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal with exemplary costs. It was also pointed out that the appellant had thought it fit to provide for specific names to be included in the Committee; which is highly deplorable and is a pointer to the malafide intentions behind the litigation.

4. We were of the opinion that one opportunity should be given to the appellant to withdraw the appeal, especially considering our prima facie view that the judgment cannot be interfered with. The objection was also against the 7th respondent; who was replaced. We gave an opportunity to get instructions, but today when the matter was taken up, Shri D.K.Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner wanted to argue the matter. It was also pointed out that the appellant’s contention against the 7th respondent is validated by his replacement in the Committee.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant took us to Section 60 of the Act and Section 32 of the Statute and argued that an Ad-hoc Committee can be appointed only of five persons and that too by the Syndicate. Insofar as the locus standi is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel relied on Dr. D.C.Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.; (1987)1 SCC 378, Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal; (2013) 1 SCC 501 and Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo & Ors.; (2014) 1 SCC 161.

6. Shri Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 8, took us through the averments in the writ petition and the memorandum of appeal, to point out that there is no specification as to the appellant’s locus standi or the status of the Association, whether it is a registered one or not. The College in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 in the writ petition, had specifically challenged the locus standi and had indicated that on 08.06.2022, the 7th respondent against whom alone objection was raised, was replaced. The appellant had filed the writ