JUDGMENT

G. C. Mathur, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment of H. N. Seth, J., allowing the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and quashing the order of the State Government dated July 9, 1973, passed under Sec. 16-D (5-A) of the Intermediate Education Act, appointing an Authorised Controller for the Adarsh Kanya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kanpur.

2. It appears that on March 12, 1969, an order was passed suspending the grant-in-aid of the Vidyalaya. The order was challenged before this Court in a writ petition and was quashed on July 31, 1970. Thereafter another order was passed by the State Government on June 8, 1970 purporting to be under Clause (20) of the Scheme of Administration of the Vidyalaya appointing an Administrator to manage the affairs of the institution. This order was also challenged before this Court in a writ petition and was quashed on September 13, 1971. The Director of Education then served a notice dated June 23, 1972 under Sec. 16-D (2) of the Act upon the manager of the institution pointing out certain defects in the running of the institution and requiring the manager to remove them and to submit his compliance report within fifteen days. The manager submitted his explanation. No action appears to have been taken on this notice. Another notice dated January 19, 1973 was served on the manager again; pointing out the same defects and requiring the manager to remove them and submit his compliance report within one month. The manager again sent a detailed explanation. In the explanation he asserted that the authorities were biased against the Committee of Management and that they had already decided to take action against the institution. On March 14, 1973, the Director of Education purporting to act under Sec. 16-D (3) made a recommendation to the State Government that the explanation given) by the Manager was not satisfactory and that action be taken under Sec. 16-D (5-A) and an Authorised Controller be appointed. The State Government accepted the recommendation of the Director and by its order dated July 9, 1973 appointed Shri Naresh Chandra Chaturvedi, Authorised Controller of the institution for a period of one year. Immediately thereafter a writ petition was filed in this Court.

3. The learned Single Judge by his judgment dated April 4, 1974, allowed the writ petition on two grounds, namely, (i) that no opportunity of showing cause as contemplated by sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 16-D was afforded to the institution and (ii) that no reasons were given either in the order of the Director making the recommendation or in the final order passed by the State Government. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed by the State Government.

4. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of Sec. 16-D of the Act. Sub-Secs. (1), (2) and (3) read thus :

(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-Sec. (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 to the State Government to proceed against the institution under sub-Sec. (4).

Sub-Sec. (4) then provides that if on receipt of the recommendation under sub-Sec. (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 within the time allowed.

It may, by order make pr