STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus COMMITIEE OF MANAGEMENT OF S.K.M. INTER COLLEGE AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 06-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
~ 
COMMITIEE OF MANAGEMENT OF 
A 
S.K.M. INTER COLLEGE AND ANR. 
B 
APRIL 6, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
~ 
U.P. lntennediate Education Act, 1921 : 
{._ 
c 
Section 16-D(2)(3)(4). College-Management Committee-Mis-
management-Director's Notice for removal of deficiencies-Unsatisfactory 
explanation by ma.~agement-Director's recommendation to takeovei-Con-
sideration of report by Govt. and passing of takeover ordei-Order held valid. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-While exercising its power lfigh Court cannot act as appel-
late authority. 
>-
I 
Administrative Law : 
E 
Administrative Authority-Duty to give reasons-Administrative 
authority is not required to record its reason as elaborately as Court : 
The Director of Education, Government of U.P. issued a show cause 
notice under section 16-D(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 
F to the respondent Committee calling upon it to remove certain ir-
} 
regularities and deficiencies highlighted in the Inspection Report and 
Audit Report submitted by the auditors - one departmental and another 
Government Audit Department. Since the respondent's explanation was 
found no-satisfactory and the Director was satisfied that the respondent· 
-... 
committee has committed misfeasance and malfeasance of the nature 
G specified in Section 16·D(3), he referred the matter to the State Govern· 
ment recommending take over of the College. The Government on cm1· 
sideration of the Director's report found that the respondent-Committee 
bas committed Irregularities and consequently it passed an order dated 
1 
July 19, 1986 appointing an Authorised Controller to take over the 
H .11anagement or the respondent-college. 
210 
STATE v. S.K.M. INTER COLLEGE 
211 
The respondents challenged this order before the High Court which A 
held that the Government had not applied its mind to the fact and that 
the charges have not been established by reasoned order and therefore, the 
impugned order was vitiated by manifest error apparent on the face of the 
record. Against the decision of the High Court State preferred an appeal 
to this Coor!. 
B 
On behalf of the respondent-committee, it was contended that the 
requirement of recording reasons mentioned in sub- section (4) of section 
HiD has not been complied with. Recording of reasons is to lie preceded 
by consideration of the explanation followed by agreement or disagreement 
with the explanation submitted by the Management. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The administrative authorities are not required to record 
reasons as elaborately as an order by a Court. What is required is 
application of mind to the relevant facts placed before the administrative D 
authority; short reasons that weighed with it to take action need to be 
--\. 
recorded. The order at hand is an elaborate one and from the record it is 
\ 
seen that the Director had culled out material facts that emerged from the 
record. [215-A, BJ 
2. The High Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of E 
the Constitution is not like an appellate authority to consider the dispute. 
It has to see whether the impugned order is based on records or whether 
the authorities have applied their own mind to the relevant facts. It is seen 
"\. 
that clauses (v) and (vi) of sub-section (3) of Section 160 specifically 
enumerate the grounds which clearly applied to the facts in this case. F 
Therefore, when the facts do exist on record and Government have applied 
their mind to those facts and came to the conclusion that from the facts 
so collected they were satisfied that the committee had contravened clauses 
(v) and (vi) of sub-section (3) of Section 16D, they have rightly exercised 
the power under sub-section (4) of section 16D. The High Court has G 
traversed the controversy as a court of appeal and committed manifest 
error oflaw in interfering with the order. [215-F to HJ 
). 
3. It could be seen from the explanation offered by the respondents 
that the properties were not properly managed and they set up title to the 
properties in themselves and mismanaged the properties, committed mal-
H 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A feasance and misfeasance and did not account for the funds collected. 
Under these circumstances, the Committee should not be allowed to be in 
_, 
the management of the Institution. [216·A, CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4851 of 
1995. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.