IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12262 of 2009 ASHOK RAI, SON OF LATE RAM KRIPAL RAI, R/O VILLAGE RAJMAHAL DIH, P.O. CHAKIYA, P.S. SIKRAHATA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR----PETITIONER. Versus 1. VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, ARA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARA, BHOJPUR. 3. INSPECTOR OF COLLEGES, ARTS AND COMMERCE, VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARA, BHOJPUR---RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02. 15.09.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara(hereinafter referred to as “the University”). 2. Petitioner is the Secretary of the dissolved governing body of the B.S.S. College, Pachari, Piro, Bhojpur(hereinafter referred to as “the College”). He has filed this writ application assailing the notification of the University bearing Memo No. C/771/Establishment/09 dated 22.8.2009, Annexure- 15 issued under the signature of the Inspector of the Colleges, Arts and Commerce of the University, whereudner the governing body of the College has been dissolved under the orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University with reference to the provisions contained in Sub-Section(4) of Section 60 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), which inter alia empowers the Vice Chancellor to constitute an ad hoc committee for the management of the College so long as a governing body is not 2 constituted in accordance with the provisions contained in Sub-Section(1) of Section 60 of the Act. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that dissolution of the governing body of the College with reference to the provisions contained in Sub- Section(4) of Section 60 of the Act is wholly without jurisdiction as such power is vested with the Vice Chancellor to constitute an ad hoc committee as an interim measure, until the governing body has not been constituted. The governing body of the College was earlier constituted of which petitioner was the Secretary and the Deputy Development Commissioner was the president. In this connection, it is pointed out that dissolution of the governing body can only take place after notice to it by the syndicate of the University. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions contained in Clause-10 and 28 of Statute-32, which inter alia provides for management and constitution of the governing body. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner with specific reference to the two provisions of the Statute submitted that the Vice Chancellor is only empowered to submit report about the mismanagement committed by the governing body before the syndicate of the University and the syndicate after notice and hearing 3 allowed to the governing body is empowered to dissolve the governing body as also to constitute ad hoc committee. In nutshell, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notification of the University dated 22.8.2009, Annexure-15 is violative of the provisions contained in Sub-Section(4) of Section-60 of the Act as also Clauses-10 and 28 of the Statute-32 framed for the management and constitution of the governing body. 5. It is further submitted that under the impugned notification Shri Narendra Kumar Pandey @ Sunil Pandey has been made a member of the ad hoc committee, who is a convict with criminal background ought not to have been included as an elected representative in the ad hoc committee as other elected representatives of the area without criminal record are available for being included as a member in the committee. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the notification of the University dated 22.8.2009, Annexure-15 can be assailed by the petitioner by filing representation before the Chancellor of the Universities in view of his powers contained in Sub-Section(4) of Section-9 of the Act, which is quoted hereunder for ready reference :- 4 “the Chancellor may, by order in writing, annual any proceeding or order of the University which is not in conformity with this Act, the Statutes, the Ordinance or the Regulation or for which adequate reason is lacking: Provided that before making any such order or direction he shall call upon the University to show cause within the time specified why such order or direction should not be made, and if any cause is shown within the said time limit, he shall consider the same”. 7. Let the petitioner assail the notification dated 22.8.2009, Annexure-15 before the Chancellor of the Universities by filing representation with reference to the provisions containing in Sub-Section(4) of Section-9 of the Act annexing a certified copy of this order. The Chancellor is requested to consider the challenge of the petitioner submitted in terms of this order as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)