Principles of Natural Justice Satisfied if Hearing is Provided Before Appointing Authorised Controller under S.16-D(4) of UP Intermediate Education Act: Allahabad HC - 2025-09-22

Allahabad High Court Upholds Appointment of Controller at Hindu Inter College, Cites Fair Hearing

Allahabad, India – The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Committee of Management of Hindu Inter College, Kandhla, thereby upholding the state government's decision to appoint an Authorized Controller to oversee the institution's affairs due to financial irregularities.

The single-judge bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that the government's action complied with the principles of natural justice as the college management was provided with all relevant reports and given a fair opportunity to be heard before the final order was passed.

---

Case Background

The case, Committee Of Management Hindu Inter College Kandhla And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others , centered on an order dated May 19, 2025, issued by the Special Secretary of Secondary Education, Government of U.P. This order appointed an Authorized Controller for the college for six months, citing mismanagement and financial irregularities uncovered during an audit.

This was the second time the matter had reached the High Court. An earlier order from February 19, 2025, appointing a controller was quashed by the Court on March 19, 2025. The Court had found that crucial inquiry reports were not supplied to the petitioners, constituting a violation of natural justice. The government was directed to pass a fresh order after affording the management a proper hearing.

Following the Court's directive, the authorities provided the reports to the college committee, held a hearing, and subsequently passed the new order on May 19, 2025, which was challenged in the present petition.

Arguments of the Parties

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Sri Ashok Khare, argued that the new order was also flawed. They contended that it was a non-speaking order, passed without due application of mind, and failed to adequately consider their detailed written and oral submissions. They claimed the decision was based solely on ex-parte reports from educational authorities and was an arbitrary exercise of power.

Conversely, the State respondents argued that they had fully complied with the High Court's previous directions. They submitted that the petitioners were provided with all necessary documents, including the adverse audit and inquiry reports, and were given a comprehensive hearing on May 14, 2025. The State maintained that the decision to appoint a controller was justified by the serious financial irregularities found, such as large cash transactions, failure to follow tender processes, and unaccounted expenditures.

Court's Analysis and Judgment

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh framed the key legal question as whether the State Government is bound to provide an opportunity to show cause before passing an order under Section 16-D(4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

The Court analyzed Section 16-D, which empowers the government to appoint a controller if a management committee is found guilty of mismanagement or other specified failures. While acknowledging that sub-section (4) does not explicitly mandate a notice from the State Government, the Court emphasized the overarching duty to "act fairly." Citing established legal precedents, the Court noted:

"Good administration and an honest or bona fide decision must... require not merely impartiality, nor merely bringing one's mind to bear on the problem, but acting fairly."

Justice Singh observed that administrative authorities are not required to record reasons with the same elaboration as a court. What is essential is the application of mind to relevant facts. The Court found that the Special Secretary had fulfilled this requirement. The judgment stated:

"After perusal of aforesaid facts, the petitioners had been given opportunity for hearing and for submitting the explanation before the Special Secretary. The officer concerned after taking into the consideration the explanation and material on record before him rejected the explanation of the petitioners and passed the impugned order."

The Court concluded that since the petitioners were put on notice, given the relevant materials, and heard in person, the principles of natural justice were satisfied. The High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, would not act as an appellate authority to re-evaluate the facts when the government's decision was based on evidence on record.

Final Decision

Finding no illegality in the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It directed the Authorized Controller to immediately take over the management of the institution, rectify the irregularities, and conduct fresh elections for the Committee of Management within the prescribed period.