Karnataka High Court
Sri.Adi Dravida Vidya Samsthe @ vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 October, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
A 1 LAAAA IN THE HIGH COURT OFIKARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 06"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 __ BEFORE V ' THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE B.S. PATILJW' ' " "* V' ' WRIT PETITION Nc.13341 0152909 (EDN=-1ifiES}'-: _ " BETWEEN: Sri.Adi Dravida Vidya Samsthe ®" Sasvehalli--577 224, Hormali Taluk, Davanagere District, Rep.by its Secretary, -_ 3- V V " Mr.S.H.Krishr1amurthy ' ' PETITIONER [By Sri.V.K.Bhat, _A:1jx}.}_._ AND: 1. The Statenf Karfié§é£;1.ka;»._V ' Repre&;entedT'bVyVits Secre1EatyL, -- Educa'£i0n'-Dcpartinefit, ' ' Vidhana>S0udha._ " ' Banga10re?1__. " _ V' __ 2. The Unfiersify, ' .AJr1-arlfia Sahyadri, Shariakaraghatta, ,ShimogaIq'i5t'1:ict--577 451, Rcpfbyv ;1t§ %Vice_ Chancellor. 3. _ College Development Commission, The Ku.vejn'1pu University, :' 4.4' ' = Jn,a_r1a Sahyadri, Shanakaraghatta, DistriCt--577 451 RESPONDENTS
"(By Sari.B.E\/Ianohar, AGA, for R1, ' Sri;-T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Adv.f0:r 122-4.) %i€#* age This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 8: 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 14.7.2008, passed by the 3"' respondent herein vide Annexure--G and consequently direct the 31¢ respondent, to accord permanent affiliation to the First Grade Colleg-s~._r"nn'~iby the Petitioner and etc. 3 This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing _ V' this day, the Court made the followingzfwy _
9...I?_i_I;z.a...13:»
1. in this writ petition. petitionie-r--Socielty is the order dated 14.07 .2008 passed by tiiel3FF' reslpondelnt {Directon College Development Corniriission of iitivempn University, Shirnoga District, vide cancelling the permanent affi1i&tii0lii,ifirafiiedi v.%ith"wéft'é¢st£ré'm 200304 to the- A.D.V.S. FirstGracie.itCoilegei:'jSa'ss.zehailiQrun by the petitioner-
Society, under Section 62(4) of the Karnataka Uriive'1'sitie.s-- 2000 {for short, hereinafter referred ;to as 'the "A.C_ltl'l)V.l ' .»llThe'L14ndisp:fited facts are that the petitioner~Society which is a'.registered'j_Society is running the First Grade Arts and ' CQi1'1I1'1€i'C.C College known as 'A.D.V.S. First Grade College'. The slaidxC0llege is an unaided College and is managed by a private 0/gggciy, it Petitioner asserts that the College is run by persons "~«Fj§longing to Scheduled Caste. It is also asserted that the _ 3 _ College is accredited C+ Grade by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council [for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the NAAC'] with effect from 2003-04. The College is permanent affiliation by the respondent--University'._.-- . terms of the provisions contained undergfiection the _Ac__tl the College was inspected by the Local'»._ins:p'ection.Committee 'fijrr the academic year 2005-06 and'Clt'o:_.,.1nd that thexfelllxyeregg basic deficiencies. In this View oflllthe: matter} recommendation was made for conducti12.g":g'-- 1 Accordingly, on 13.02.2006, the InspectionV:._CommitteeTconducted a fresh inspection by that there were certain basic it recommended for reconsiderattionl' plevrrlnanentlWaffiliation granted to the College. of the period of five years from the date 'of V_:pen9nan'ent""affiliation and for the purpose of 0' 'renewal: during. the academic year 2008-09 the Local Inspection College and noticed that the College had notllcolmpliedlvltiliwith the conditions imposed by the previous 'Inspection Committees and the deficiencies pointed out in the blé1'5iCllfi£TaStFuC{ufal facilities and also that the College had not .___l'olbtained the required minimum C++ Grade by the NAAC. In lfthis background, the Inspection Committee recommended for VV77 4 A_AA_ cancellation of the permanent affiliation granted. The report of the Committee was considered and approved by the Syndicate and the Academic Council in their meetings held on 28.03.2008 and 29.03.2008 respectively.
3. In the meanwhile, the Secretary of the College dated 15.04.2008 produced at Anne>li1re»Dl,stated"f.that--7=they deficiencies pointed out were not true'.--_ He' --ju'stified._\'*the._g nonpayment of security deposit" 'on the. . the' University has itself takena dfieisidn fr10_t tpfiirisistvfjfor such deposit, on the request made thveifiissocviation of Management of different Private C'ol1_ege;_sl." stated that a qualified librarian had .been__ 'as asin the year 1991 and that inspection College 'again and again was not in accordance with ftgégulations. It was further stated _ that th.e'lUr1iversity'- continued affiliation and in fact granted 'A'-.affi1ia.tfionsl' tocolleges which did not have C++ Grade by the only got C Grade. In the reply submitted V by the Secretary certain allegations were made against the .4 4.44'M.embers Voiwthe Local inspection Committee by the Secretary of t_heV_ll"--c-liege using offensive language. The University taking 'serious note of the offensive language used has persuaded itself "to pass the impugned order canceling the permanent affiliation yr W 5 _ granted recording a finding that in the absence of C++ Grade accredited by the NAAC and in the wake of the deficiencies noticed and reported by the inspection Committees, thefigollege was not entitled for the benefit of permanent ~ this order dated 14.07.2008 producedmat An_ne}:ui5e:--.C'§"iVi1Viat C"
challenged in this writ petition.
4. The main contention oflllthe learnedVcounseiwforj the!' petitioner Sn' Vijaya Krishna Bhat__i.sV:gtha't..the order is passed without considering' the Secretary of the College and ; proper and fair opportunity to uofmthe authorities that there wereflnov deficiencies in the College run by tlt'? 'Counsel further submits that noticing thejoffensiveél ll.'1a:ig;:1age used in the reply dated __15.04.2fQlO8el. given ~ the Secretary, the petitionerasociety expressing apology for the offensive language used."-l'._iJespi'te_ the-'same, the University has proceeded to pass the inipugzield-order canceling the permanent affiliation. It is ..furthe'r~ 'contention that in the case of similarly placed 4"c.ollege--s..:'even though only C grade accreditation was given by th_e_.f\IAAC, permanent affiliation is' granted and the affiliation granted earlier is continued and only the petitioner--College is its _ 6 at singled out for discriminatory treatment. He has also pointed out that the College does not suffer from any basic deficiencies in the matter of providing infrastructures required ar1d.i:if._on1y the petitioner--Society had been given a fair and. reasoiiaiilef opportunity and if only the materials;already_fpIa'ced "
considered by the respondent--authoi:ity.:1'"the fimpxign.eL{].riopriiier canceling the permanent affiliation «could not have:beyen._pVas3sed. '
5. Sri T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sxv..nlgay,"'counsei--app.-caring for the respondent--University the statement of objections strongly _justifies"tIie the College. He submits that o.f--4lCjf%-.-if accredited by the NAAC is niandatolry permanent affiliation nor renevval of could be granted. He has further pointed iinilflrespect of other Colleges no such _ leniency}? is shown' or exemption is given. Several other aspects the statement of objections including the strong"._ohj'ectivons:'taken to the offensive language used by the Secretary of ~tlie College against the Members of the Local _. 'A inspection"-Comniittee.
C 'Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri B.l\/{anohar C ST.,1p}f;01'tS the action taken and the contentions advanced by the if counsel for the respondent--University. %"
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, I find that the language used by the Secretary of the College while the reply dated 15.04.2008 to the Vice respondent--University is highly ob_§ec_ti.onable_;'WTl"i;5; 'Tl5i't1l_FC 00 allegations made against the meIi2.be1':'s*~of :'th"e Committee are totally irresponsible. 0' isxl affiliated to the University llf11l{h:v.'/fpnprpp;/15ing the language directed against are inspecting the College as/_representatives....9T?_ Therefore, this Court has to the approach of the College in xlanguage against the Members of the Insplectioné "C.o1'nrnittee. However, the University being the Apex' Bovdy' has to deal with the matter in a dispassionate 'tI1anne1' taking note of the infractions of the law and not being guided by the language used the College. A careful perusal of the impugned »._orde'r produced at Annexure~G does not show that is arty application of mind to the various explanations éloffe-red -and assertions made by the Secretary of the College in 0 hisletter dated 15.04.2008 or for that matter in the reply dated 0AA"*02.06.20O8 addressed to the Vice Chancellor and other tr A 8 W functionaries. There is also no reference to the aspects pointed out by the petitioner-Society that in respect of several other Colleges though C++ Grade by the NAAC had not been. the permanent affiliation granted is not cancelled.':..Cou'nsel. the petitioner has also pointed out that in_?th'e* Vldatedl"
2.6.2008, it is asserted that all the the Inspection Committee havevbeenl'-compliedllivvithi instance, with regard to the nonaappointment of qualified Librarian, an the reply that a qualified Librarian is appQi_.nted.. regard to the quality of in the College, assertions the 'College has ensured 100% results for College. The statement made in reP1l' College was running as per the timetable and tiielllrispection Committee visited before 'C'1o,3ov-t;;fm;A~-is..es. xbeforevtliel schedule time for commencing of the CA:)lle.ge'is r1o_t"considered in the impugned order. Even as ' " regardsllthe_seeu:'ity deposit, the assertions made by the College _ ..4is.ynot considered in the impugned order. Suffice to observe that impugned order does not deal with the stand taken by the ____"p'etit.ioner»Society in the detailed reply submitted by it. W 9 _
8. As can be seen from the first proviso to sub-clause 4 of Section 62, permanent affiliation shall not be revoked unless an opportunity is afforded by the University to the iéotlege concerned. The requirement of affording opportunityin1pl1'c.s_in it the requirement to apply its mind to the rep1y:"'given'h'yht'he petitioner--Society regarding the deficiencies pointed 'V
9. In the instant case, as already adverted _ the impugned order does not deal the stand on each of the deficiencies by _ACfQi1€:%'g§.."' cancellation of Derrnanent affiliation uiiiitoiiimted-1)' " 'certain serious consequences. jislflfbeing r=.'iri""right from the year 1991. If really theifiollege hat-i.Vf_certainV'Vi;>asic deficiencies and the corrlpetent», authovr'if3:V'V'-».,pc0,rrik35to' such a conclusion after considering the "reply by the petitioner--Society then, in theéinterest "or, ensuring the quality of education the A'~i.}niversity_vhastake serious note of it and action in accordance iaelvresorted to. Indeed that is the need of the if hour. '""--Ho*»irever, this can only done after carefully reflecting "'.v."upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the stand f_tal<en"tl1:e petitioner re-butting the observations made by the inspection Committee. There is nothing wrong if the University persuades itself to conduct one more inspection and apprises tr is M itself of the actual state of affairs. In fact, for reasons not supportable in law, the impugned order states that there was no provision for conducting another inspection. There is riiolbasis for such a conclusion. It is always open for the secure a report from the Inspection Cominittee__iivith'regard"
the existence or otherwise of thezvhlbasic ..vii1_fra'str_u'cturejwfor imparting education effectively. _ If the lU_niversity: 'persuaties'v, itself to conduct one more inspectiolnctherelcannoi be any legal impediment for this. l-Iowever, ;sla'id_&s0, llampéersuaded to take exception to the rA't:lfie'_v_Secretary of the College in his le_tt<*:.t'¢ The College cannot get avvgay its part. While I hold that the is iurisustainable in law and the matter requires reAconsidei'ation,». fo'r._tlie"'conduct of the Secretary of the College Arefiected through}-'hle" letter addressed vide Annexures~D Jlész'-F, petitioner-$ociety shall have to bear exemplary costs, so that"i.tT'a.cts lesson for it in future. Hence, a sum of l by Rs.1tif)'t)O/7 yshalillbe paid as costs to the University. .. regard to the security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-- 4"wfhicVh'--is"A required to be paid as asserted by the University in its sitateiment of objections, it is not necessary for this Court to pronounce on it as the stand taken by the petitioner is that at kc __ 31 _ the request of the Association of Management of different private Colleges such a requirement is not insisted. The trfuth or otherwise of this assertion of the petitioner has to be_.goLne_t1~nvto by the University itself. However, in the circumstances of this case, I find itme2§pedi_~eiit" ,dVi'rec't thved"
petitioner--Society to deposit a sum of "the security deposit, whereupon thea._respondent~Univg:rsity.§shai1_* reconsider the matter. Security so rnade subject to the findings to be bj,;'eA.the_'giiTA'riiversity "and if the University comes tothe hVas"taken a decision not to insist for by the Association of Management tjplietges, it will be open to the petiti:oner--iSo=c'iety for refund of the said amount.
11. In the'*_r_esu1tV' and the foregoing reasons, this writ __.petiti0:"i{ allowed" part. The impugned order at Annextire-«G Aflis.set..asi-;ie;._'i"The~--respondent--University is directed to reconsider thgpffiatter of the observations made herein above V and after v'.pro~vi'ding an opportunity to the petitioner--Soeiety to M ii .u"p.rodu_c_:e such materials in support of its stand as is permissible _' m'~1aw.~' The respondent--University shall pass a reasoned order '::'_4'b-ywapplying its mind to the stand taken and the material ,, U i. uc€d or to be produced by the petitioner-«Society in support , 12 M of its stand as expeditiously as possible. Payment of cost of Rs.15,000/-- and depositing the security amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be condition precedent for reconsideraifion of the matter as directed. If a re~inspection is University, it shall be on payment 'of, prescribediii'fee"by.Vtiaveu"
petitioner--Society.
J"UDeE PKS