Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Educational Society For Career ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 25 March, 2014
1
W. P. No. 20878/12
25/03/14
Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Adv. General for respondent
nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Shri Tabrez Sheikh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5.
Seeking quashment of certain communications made vide Annexures P-15 and P-16 vide letters dated 28.10.12, 10.10.12, 25.09.12 and 18.03.04 by which steps were being taken for cancelling the recognition and affiliation of the petitioners' institute, this writ petition is filed by the petitioners.
While admitting the petition, an interim order has been passed by this Court with a direction to respondent nos. 4 and 5 to permit the students of the petitioner institute to appear in the examination for the courses conducted by the institute and to include the name of petitioners in the list for participating in the counseling for the academic session 2013-14 vide orders dated 20.12.12 and 17.05.13.
Petitioner no. 1 is a registered society registered under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 and has established an educational institute for imparting studies in various faculties like Bachelor of Business Administration and Bachelor of Computer Application etc. The institute is functioning since 1997.
It is the grievance of the institute that even though it is functioning properly and is following the procedure, still the aforesaid communications have been issued to the petitioners' institute for certain conditions which are not correct. It is stated in the writ petition that on the ground that petitioners have not furnished solvent surety and F. D. R. in accordance with the 2 conditions stipulated by the Department of Higher Education, a proposal was made to cancel the affiliation and recognition of the institute.
By filing various documents, petitioners have tried to demonstrate before this Court that both the conditions based on which the action was proposed to be taken has been fulfilled by the petitioner and, therefore, no action can be taken. Annexure P-5 has been filed by the petitioners in support of the aforesaid contention.
Respondents have filed the reply and it goes to show that as petitioners have not fulfilled the mandatory conditions concerning possession of immovable property, therefore, action is proposed to be taken.
However, from the reply filed by the State Govt, it is seen that the State Govt. has not indicated as to why it is taking the action.
On the contrary, it is said that the action has been taken at the instance of the University and the University has come out with a case that it is the direction of the State Govt. which has been followed by the University, and, therefore, they have nothing to say in the matter that the conditions with regard to submission of F. D. R. and submission of solvent surety is enforced by the Department of Higher Education and not by the University.
However, the fact remains that the institute has brought on record certain documents which prima facie shows that they have complied with the mandatory conditions.
If that be so, the State Govt. or the University concerned shall look into the matter and a final decision be taken with regard to the proposed communications.
Accordingly, it is thought appropriate to direct respondent 3 no. 2 the Commissioner, Department of Higher Education to look into the matter and after consulting with the University, decide the question of continuing with the affiliation/recognition of the petitioners in accordance with law.
Accordingly, it is directed that on the petitioners' filing a certified copy of this order along with the relevant documents indicating compliance of the directives of the authorities concerned, respondent no. 2 the Commissioner shall examine the matter and on such examination if he comes to any conclusion that action is to be taken, he shall give notice to the petitioners, give them reasonable opportunity to comply with the same and, thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Till the aforesaid process is not concluded, the interim arrangement granted by this Court shall continue to remain in operation.
Respondent no. 2 shall conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) (Anil Sharma)
Judge Judge
Vy*