1. The petitioner was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya (University) on 5.9.1992 under section 13 of Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, for short' Adhiniyam' for a period of four years and he had joined on 17.9.1992. The Governor exercising the power under section 52 (1) of the Adhiniyam issued a notification on 21.1.1994 and by operation thereof the petitioner had ceased to be the Vice-Chancellor with effect from the said date. On 22.1.1994 the petitioner had moved a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to declare the action as mala fide, illegal, arbitrary, impinging his right to continue in office till 17.9.1996 and was violative of principles of natural justice. The Division Bench, by its order dated 21.2.1994, in Misc. Petition No. 125 of 1994 dismissed the petition. Thus, this petition by special leave.

2. Two contentions were raised in the High Court as well as before us that the action of the Governor is administrative and omission to give opportunity to the petitioner is violative of principle of natural justice, apart from being a mala fide exercise of powers by the State Government. Since the Misc. Petition was taken up for hearing at the admission stage, records had been called for by the High Court and were made available by the Government. As stated in the judgment, the High Court felt it expedient to dispose of the case at the hearing stage itself. In those circumstances no counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government. With a view to satisfy the tenability of the contentions raised vis-a-vis the material made available by the Government in support of the impugned order and to satisfy ourselves independently, we sent for the records and the counsel today placed the records before us. We have carefully gone through the record and also the note said to have been submitted to the Government for consideration before issuing the notification. We have heard the counsel on both sides.

3. Undoubtedly the petitioner was appointed under section 13 of the Adhiniyam and section 14 thereof provides an elaborate enquiry and reasonable opportunity for removal of the Vice-Chancellor (Kulpati) from office before expiry of the term, obviously as a measure of punishment. Section 52 (1) of the Adhiniyam equally empowers the State Government in a modified form to satisfy that:

"If the State Government on receipt of a report or otherwise, is satisfied that situation has arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, without detriment to the interests of the University, and it is expedient in the interest of the University so to do, it may by notification, for reasons to be mentioned therein, direct that the provision of sections 13, 14,20 to 25, 40, 47, 48,54 and 68 shall, as from the date specified in the notification, apply to the University, subject to the modifications specified in the Third Schedule."

On issuance thereof the Vice-Chancellor shall cease to hold office by operation of sub-section (4) of section 52, clause (ii) thus-

"the Kulpati, holding office immediately before the appointed date, shall notwithstanding that his term of office has not expired, vacate his office. "

By operation thereof the applicability of sections 13 and 14 stood modified and the need to conduct a regular enquiry against the petitioner was obviated. On issuance of the notification under section 52 (1) and on and with effect from the said date the V ice-Chancellor, by operation of section 52 (4) shall, notwithstanding his term of office had not been expired, is required to vacate his office. In other words, he ceased to hold the office. It is found as a fact that the petitioner ceased to hold office with effect from 21.1.1994 and the new incumbent had assumed office.

4. Though the contention of mala fides has been repeated by the learned Senior Counsel, when we pointed out, that the petitioner had not made a