SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- This appeal has been filed by the State and the officials of its education department. It is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge, whereby he quashed an order appointing an authorised controller for the Arya Kanya Inter College, Jhansi.

2. On 21st April, 1971 the Director of Education U. P. served upon the Manager of the College a notice purporting to be under Section 16-D (2) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. It enumerated 19 irregularities and defects in the working of the institution, and stated that the mentioned irregularities made it clear that the management of the college was not being conducted properly and that the instructions issued by the Department were being repeatedly evaded. It required the institution to remedy the defects and to submit an explanation under Section 16-D (2). The management submitted a detailed explanation on 14th May, 1971. Thereafter, the Director made some further queries by his letter dated May 26, 1971, to which a reply was sent by the management on 3rd June 1971. On December 21, 1971, the State Government passed an order under Section 16-D (4) (I) of the Act. This order stated that after considering the recommendations made by the Director under Section 16-D (3) (I) of the Act, the Government was of the opinion that the explanation furnished by the institution to the notice served upon it was not satisfactory. Irregularities were still existing in the College, as a result of which maladministration was rampant in the institution. In these circumstances, it had become impossible for the affairs of the institution to be run properly and so, it was necessary to appoint an authorised controller. The order went on to state that the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi, was being appointed as the authorised controller for a period of one year, who would remove the irregularities and mismanagement in the institution within this period.

3. The management felt aggrieved and instituted a writ petition in this Court. The order appointing the authorised controller was challenged on a variety of grounds. A learned Single Judge was impressed by one of them. He held that before passing an order under sub-section (4) of Section 16-D, the State Government must give an opportunity of showing cause to the management of the institution. No such opportunity was given. Further, although the impugned order states that upon a consideration of the report of the Director of Education the State Government was satisfied that there was mismanagement in the institution, it gave no instances of acts of mismanagement. It seems blindly to have followed the report of the Director. On this twin ground, it was held that the order violated the principles of natural justice, and was liable to be quashed. Aggrieved, the State authorities have come up in appeal.

4. Section 16-D in so far as it is material states :-

"16-D. Inspection of recognised institution and removal of defects -

(1) The Director may cause a recognised institution to be inspected from time to time.

(2) The Director may direct a management to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise.

(3) If the management fails to comply with any direction made under sub-section (2), the Director may, after considering the explanation or representation, if any, given or made by the management.

(a) refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition or

(b) recommend the State Government to proceed against the institution under sub-section (4).

(4) If on the receipt of a recommendation under sub-section (3) the State Government is satisfied that - (a) the affairs of the recognised institution are being mismanaged; or

(b) the management of the institution has wilfully or persistently failed in the performance of its duties; or

(c) the institution is being conducted otherwise than in accordance with the scheme of Administration; or

(d) the draft of the Scheme of Administration has not been submitted wi