ORDER
1. The petitioner, who is a member of the general body of the Meerut Collegiate Association, has by means of the present petition under Art: 226 of the Constitution prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the communication dt. 25-5-1993 of the Principal, Meerut College, Meerut (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) and for a further relief by seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Principal of the Meerut College not to operate the bank accounts singly except with the joint signature of the Secretary.
2. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that the Principal is committing gross financial irregularities and is mismanaging the funds of the College, particularly the students' funds and is acting in contravention of the Statutes of the Meerut University which regulate the financial powers of the Principal. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition as a public interest litigation.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Principal it is stated that the petitioner is in league with the Honorary Secretary and has filed the present writ petition on wholly irrelevant grounds on account of the personal grudge against him ..... It is stated that the Principal had refused to give charge of the office of Head of Department on 1 st of July, 1993 to the wife of petitioner Dr. Mrs. S. K.
Dasgupta as she was at Sl. No. 4 in the departmental seniority list of Lecturers and has appointed Dr. R. N. Agarwal, the senior-
most Lecturer as Head of the Education Department. The petitioner was further unhappy with the Principal as he had objected to the grant of salary to the petitioner for the period he was absent and the order of the Principal had been upheld by the Director of Higher Education by letter dt. 28th of Nov.
1987 and as such the salary of the petitioner was withheld. It is admitted that the State Government has issued a show cause notice under S. 58 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 to the Meerut College Association for showing cause why an Authorised Controller should not be appointed.
4. It is noteworthy that the management has not approached this Court and there is no resolution of the general body of the Meerut Collegiate Association to file a writ petition in the High Court. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in his individual capacity expecting this Court to go into details of the alleged financial irregularities and to curtail the powers of the Principal with regard to the operation of the accounts of the College. From the pleadings in the affidavits exchanged between the parties it is apparent that there is a conflict between the Principal and the Honorary Secretary and that the Honorary Secretary has been adopting various methods to check and control the exercise of the financial powers vested with the Principal. The Honorary Secretary even wrote to the banks not to permit the Principal to operate the accounts whereupon the banks declined withdrawals to be made by the Principal. The Principal thereafter wrote a letter dt. 23rd April, 1993 to the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University seeking clarification with, regard to the financial powers which were vested in him and the Vice-Chancellor clarified the matter by letter of 27th April, 1993. A copy of the said letter of the Vice-Chancellor is Annexure-15 to the counter-affidavit. The relevant portion of the Vice-Chancellor's letter is quoted below:
"1. The directions of the President/ Secretary of the Management regarding the internal management of the college is not binding on the Principal as per Statutes and form of agreement mentioned on pages Nos. 97, 98, 99 of the University Handbook Vol. I, 1973, specially No. (5) on page No. 98.
2. Regarding the financial matters, please refer to Statutes Nos. 13, 36, 37, 38 and 39.
You will agree that the University Act and Statutes of 1973 has to be faithfully observed verbatim and I have to see that it is done so as one of my duties as laid down therein."
Thereafter the Vice-Chancellor again wrote a letter on the 3rd of June, 1993, to the Principal clarifying that the Principal shall administer all the students' funds such as Games Funds, Union Funds, Reading Room Funds etc. with the help of the Committee appointed by him and in accordance with the directions received from the University from time to time. However, as the bank was creating problems for the Principal, the Vice-
Chancellor again wrote a letter on the 17th June, 1993 clarifying that under Clauses 13, 36 of the Statutes of the University the Finance Committee shall prepare the annual budget of the college except of the students funds and clarified that the Finance Committee was not concerned with the student funds which had to be operated by the Principal along with educational vacational fund, N.S.S. fund and students securities and that the management has nothing to do with these funds.
5. Having heard counsel for parties at length and having perused the writ petition, counter-affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit it is clear that there is an internal tussle in the College between the Principal and the Honorary Secretary with regard to the exercise of financial powers. The Vice-Chancellor has upheld the right of the Principal to operate certain funds of the College and the orders of the Vice-Chancellor do not suffer from any infirmity in law. The Vice-Chancellor has the authority to look into the financial matters of the college in exercise of the powers vested in him under Ss. 13(1) and 113(4) of the U.P. State Universities Act he has issued clarifications vide his letters dt. 27th April, 1993, 3rd June, 1993 and 17th June, 1993. The allegations made in the writ petition with regard to the mismanagement in the College for the last several years cannot be gone into by this Court in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has a remedy to make a representation to the State Government which has already issued a notice under S. 58 of the U.P. State Universities Act so that the State Government can go into the details of the charges levelled by the petitioner. If the Principal has exceeded his authority and is acting in contravention of the Rules and the Government Orders and the management has not taken any action against the Principal, then the State Government is fully empowered to take necessary steps to prevent the financial mismanagement of the funds of the College. It is also open to the petitioner to approach the Vice-Chancellor and it will be open to the Vice-Chancellor to exercise the statutory powers vested in him under Ss. 13(1) and 13(4) of the Act and to ensure that the, Principal acts within the, parameters of the powers conferred upon him by the U.P. State Universities Act. and the Government Orders which have been issued in this regard. The Principal is not issuing any cheque in excess of Rs. 1,000/-and that has been upheld by the Vice-Chancellor. This Court does not find any good reason to prevent the Principal from operating the college funds which have been authorised by the Vice-Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of the Statuses of the Meerut University. This Court is further of the opinion that the present writ petition is not a public interest litigation but a device of the petitioner to settle his personal scores and differences with the Principal of the College. The communication sent by the Principal to the Honorary Secretary on 25-5-1993 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) is inconformity with the order of the Vice-Chancellor dt. 23-4-1993 and as such does not call for any interference by this Court in the present proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is open to the petitioner to pursue his grievances before the statutory authorities mentioned above and the present writ petition in this Court is wholly misconceived.
6 . For the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The interim order is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
7. Petition dismissed.