JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.1, vide which, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hansi has been appointed as the Administrator of S.D. Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Hansi (Hisar). Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents not to interfere in the working of the college.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, vide order dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure P-9), the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hansi has been appointed as the Administrator of the S.D. Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Hansi (Hisar) under Section 3 of the Haryana Private Educational Institutions (Taking over of Management) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1978'). It is submitted that the said order is absolutely illegal and against law and is in violation of the Act of 1978, more so, Section 3 (c) of the Act of 1978 and also the Haryana Private Educational Institutional (Taking over the Management) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred as 1980 Rules'). It is submitted that under Section 3 of the Act of 1978, the maximum period for which an Administrator can be appointed is three years. It is argued that in the present case, as per the impugned order, the Administrator has been appointed for an indefinite period, which is against the provisions of Section 3 (1)(c) of the Act of 1978. It is also argued that the provisions of Section 3 (1)(c) of the Act of 1978 stipulate that before the competent authority takes over the management of an Educational Institution, it has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of the college education to take over the management of the said Educational Institution. It is argued that the impugned order does not reflect any application of mind so as to remotely show that the said aspect has been taken into consideration before taking over the management of the college and thus, on the said ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the 1980 Rules, the Competent Authority is required to pass a speaking order before taking over the management of a college/educational institution. It is stated that the said rule read in conjunction with Section 3 (1)(c) of the Act of 1978, envisages that there should be application of mind, more so, on the aspect of, the taking over being expedient in the interest of the college and the same should be reflected in the order passed. It is argued that in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner had filed a detailed reply dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure P-8) controverting each and every allegation made in the show cause notice and also levelled allegations against respondent No.5, but however, without considering the said reply, a cryptic and non-speaking order dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure P-9) has been passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Higher Education Department, Chandigarh. It is submitted that on the said ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. In support of his arguments, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in case titled as "Bhagwan Shri Krishan College of Education (For Women), Mandi Dabwali v. Director of Higher Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, reported as 1991(2) RSJ 213.

3. Learned Senior