The recognized Committee of Management is entitled to function until the Vice-Chancellor decides on the removal of office bearers. The Court declined to entertain the challenge to the no-confidence motion, citing it as a private dispute.

R. K. AGRAWAL, J.

( 1 ) ALL these four writ petitions relate to the Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand Post graduate College, Ghazipur and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as follows : civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45079 of 2000 has been filed by the Committee of Management of swami Sahjanand Post Graduate College, Ghazipur, through its Joint Secretary (working as secretary), Ramji Ral, seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar, Vir Bahadur Singh purvanchal University, Jaunpur respectively, to produce the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor contained in the communication of the Registrar of the Purvanchal University dated 9th september, 2000 filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and on production thereof the same be quashed. Vide order dated 9th September, 2000 the Registrar of the Purvanchal University, jaunpur had informed the Secretary of the Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand Post graduate College that till the representation made by Sri Ramayan Rai and others, under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 is decided by the Chancellor the Committee of management of which Kavindra Nath Sharma is the Manager and which had already been recognised shall perform the function of the Committee of Management. According to the petitioner, Swami Sahjanand Post Graduate College, Ghazipur, is an affiliated College of Vir bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the University ). It is being run by a Committee of Management constituted in the election held on 19th April, 1999 in which Ajai Kumar Rai and Kavindra Nath Sharma were elected as the President and the secretary of the Committee of Management. A dispute was raised regarding the election of the committee of Management. The Vice-Chancellor vide order dated 17th August, 1999 recognised the Committee of Management of which Ajai Kumar Rai had been elected as the President and kavindra Nath Sharma as the Secretary. One Ramayan Rai made a representation under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the chancellor. According to the petitioner, some dispute arose regarding functioning of the president and the Secretary and a meeting was called by the members of the Committee of management on 20th August, 2000 in which a resolution of no confidence motion was passed against the President and the Secretary. It was resolved therein that the Joint Secretary of committee of Management, Ramji Rai, would act as its Secretary/manager until an elected person is available to hold the office. Vide letter dated 22nd August, 2000, the resolution was communicated to the Vice-Chancellor. However, Kavindra Nath Sharma, respondent No. 3, by letter dated 23rd August, 2000 approached the Vice-Chancellor stating therein that on 20th august, 2000 Ramayan Rai had proclaimed himself to be the President and Ramji Rai as Joint secretary and is mounting pressure to operate the bank account of the Post Graduate College. They are further causing disturbance inthe management of the said College and necessary directions be issued to the administration and the bank of the College that till such time chancellor does not decide the representation made by Ramayan Rai, the Committee of management headed by Kavindra Nath Sharma as Manager and Ajai Kumar Rai as President be allowed to function and no hindrance be caused to their working. On the said letter/application, the Vice-Chancellor passed the impugned order, which was communicated to the petitioner by registered post. The Impugned order has been challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that the said order has been passed without giving any show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing and, therefore, is i