Kerala High Court
Kmct Law College vs University Of Calicut on 29 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 58
Author: S. Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 9TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.1846 OF 2019
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2019 IN WP(C)
NO.29791/2018(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
KMCT LAW COLLEGE
(RUN BY KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST),
KUTTIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA-679 571,
REPRESENTED BY THE TRUSTEE, DR. K.M. NAVAS.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SRI.RIJI RAJENDRAN
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O, MALAPPURAM,
KERALA-673 635,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN(B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. 1846 of 2019 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2020 S. Manikumar, CJ Challenge in this writ appeal is to the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.29791 of 2018 dated 11.07.2019, by which the writ court, while adverting to the prayers, for a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit-P5 report of inspection dated 22.03.2018 and consequentially, to issue a mandamus directing the University to grant affiliation for the five year integrated B.Com L.L.B course, taking note of reports of the District Level Inspection Committee (DLIC) 22.03.2018 and the inspection conducted by the learned Advocate Commissioner on 24.12.2019, directed the University to take expeditious action for conducting another inspection by the DLIC.
2. Short facts leading to the writ appeal are as under:-
KMCT Law College, is conducting a five year integrated course of B.A.L.L.B and three year L.L.B Course affiliated to Calicut University. College submitted Exhibit-P3 application for affiliation on 28.12.2017, for starting a five year integrated B.Com L.L.B Course. DLIC has conducted an inspection on 22.03.2018. According to the University, Committee as per Exhibit-P5 report found that facilities provided in the College are not satisfactory. The Committee has observed that buildings are temporary; facilities provided for W.A. 1846 of 2019 3 cultural and sports activities for students are not satisfactory; present building in which College is functioning, cannot accommodate a new programme etc. Thus, Exhibit-P5 inspection report came to be challenged in the writ petition.
3. Before the writ court, the Registrar of Calicut University has filed a counter affidavit contending as follows:
"1. The KMCT Law College, Kuttippuram, Malappuram is an affiliated law college under the jurisdiction of the University of Calicut with 5 year BBA LLB (110 students) and 3 year LLB programmes (50 students) with the approval of Bar Council of India.
2. The Bar Council of India has granted temporary approval of affiliation to the petitioner's college for 3 year LLB as well as five year BBA LLB programmes for the academic year 2018-19. It is mentioned in the approval order that the inspection of the Bar Council of India is pending in the college.
3. In response to the Notification No.161918/CDC-A3/2018/Admn. dated 29/09/2017, the KMCT Law College, Kuttippuram, Malappuram had also applied for permanent increase of 20 seats in the existing BBA LLB programme for the academic year 2018-19. The District Level Inspection Commission aft-er verifying the facilities available in the college, recommended only an increase of 10 seats in existing five year BBA LLB programme and the same has been granted vide U.O. No.9014/2018/Admn dated 28/07/2018. Hence, fiat present the total intake for five year BBA LLB programme in the college is 110 seats so also the Principal, KMCT College, Kuttippuram, Malappuram had submitted an application for starting five year B.Com LLB for the academic year 2018-19 and remitted the required fee.W.A. 1846 of 2019 4
4. As a part of the statutory procedure, the District Level Inspection Commission, appointed by the Syndicate conducted inspection at the college and submitted the report. However, the DLIC has not recommended the proposed programme due to the reason that the present building in which the college functions cannot accommodate a new additional programme.
5. The Syndicate held on 21.07.2018, considered the reports submitted by the DLIC concerned regarding the inspection conducted for granting of new programmes for the academic year 2018-19 and 2019--20 including the petitioner's college and resolved to accept the DLIC reports vide U.O. No.8975/2018/Admn dated 27.07.2018.
6. The DLIC also reported that
1) The college building is temporary,
2) Amenities not provided separately for male and female students and
3) The facilities provided for cultural and sports activities for students are not satisfactory. Due to these reasons the DLIC did not recommend the five year integrated BCom LLB programme.
7. Hence, the petitioner's application was rejected by the Syndicate."
4. The trustee of Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust, administering KMCT Law College has filed I.A. No.1 of 2018 before the writ court for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect nature of the building and ascertain the amenities provided therein. Relevant portion of the said application is extracted hereunder:
"A. This Court had directed the respondent to file counter affidavit before this Court in response to the averments in the writ petition.W.A. 1846 of 2019 5
Pursuant to the same, the respondent filed a counter affidavit. In the said affidavit, it is contented that as a part of the statutory procedure, the District Level Inspection Commission (DLIC), appointed by the Syndicate conducted inspection at the college and submitted the report. It is further stated that the DLIC had not recommended the proposed programme and as per the DLIC report for the following reasons. (1) the college, building is temporary, (2) amenities are not provided separately for male and female students and (3) the facilities provided for cultural and sports activities for students are not satisfactory.
B. It is the specific case put forward by the petitioner that adequate land has been provided and all the necessary infrastructure including legal education buildings with a build-up area of 40,.000 square feet required for effectively running professional law courses by investing more than Rs. 10 crores. Upon satisfaction the college is given approval by the Bar Council of India for conducting 5 year integrated B.B.A LL.B course and for 3 year LL.B course.
C. In the above circumstances, it has become necessary that an Advocate Commissioner "is appointed by this" Hon'ble Court to verify the veracity of the statements made by the respondent in their affidavit filed before this Hon'ble Court. Hence, it is prayed that this, Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint an Advocate commissioner, to conduct an inspection, to verify and submit a report on the aspects stated in the schedule below:
SCHEDULE
a) Ascertain whether the building provided by the petitioner is temporary or permanent in nature;
b) Ascertain whether amenities are provided separately for male and female students;W.A. 1846 of 2019 6
c) Such other matter requested to by the parties at the time of inspection;
Therefore, for the reasons and averments made above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may allow this application and appoint an Advocate commissioner to determine the questions indicated in the schedule above and that may be pointed out at the time of conducting the inspection by the Commission by either parties."
5. Opposing the prayer for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, a statement has been filed by the Calicut University, wherein it is stated that grant of affiliation to new courses or new colleges is governed by Chapter 23 of the Calicut University First Statutes. It is further stated that in terms of Statute 8 of the Calicut University First Statutes, "deciding to proceed with the application, it shall direct a local enquiry to be made by the competent person or persons appointed by it in this behalf provided that it shall be competent for the Syndicate to dispense with the enquiry above mentioned in the case of any subject or group of subjects in which it does not, for special reasons to be recorded, consider a local enquiry necessary." Reference has been made to Statutes 9, 19 and 26 of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977.
6. Writ court, by order dated 14.01.2019 in I.A. No.1 of 2018 in W.P. (C) No.29791 of 2018 appointed Adv.Sri.Shiraz Bava V.S. as Advocate Commissioner and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as commission batta. Relevant portion of the said order reads thus: W.A. 1846 of 2019 7
"The University had taken decision on the factual aspects. The petitioner wants contradict that fact finding. The question whether the decision of the University is erroneous or not can be decided only after adverting to the facts. The matter is related to affiliation. The commissioner report would only be a piece of evidence. It cannot itself decide an issue. The observation of the inspection team is correct or not can be decided with reference to the commission report. It is only to help the Court for a proper decision appointment of a commissioner is sought. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the application can be allowed. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2018 is allowed. Adv.Shiraz Bava V.S. is appointed as the Advocate Commissioner. Petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) as commission batta. The report shall be filed within two weeks. It is made clear that the report is only a piece of evidence and acceptance of such report would depend upon the final decision of this Court at the time of hearing. The petitioner as well as the University are free to give necessary work to the Advocate Commissioner.
Post this matter on 4.2.2019."
7. Pursuant to the above order, the learned Advocate Commissioner has submitted a report dated 2.2.2019. On receipt of the Advocate Commissioner's report, writ court directed the University to cause further inspection by DLIC. Being aggrieved by the judgment impugned, instant writ appeal is filed on the following grounds:
W.A. 1846 of 2019 8
"A. Writ court ought to have appreciated the fact that serious adverse impact would be caused as the direction would not serve the purpose, but would only prolong the application preferred by the appellant for affiliation.
B. It is specifically contented that the College has provided the infrastructural facilities outlined under the Rules. The College has recruited 100% of the faculty to each subjects of studies as per the norms of the Bar Council of India for the courses. Facilities are provided for imparting practical legal education specified in the curriculum under the Rules and Legal Aid Clinic along with Court training and Moot Court exercises. Adequate library, computer and technical facilities including online library facilities are provided. The college has fulfilled all the criteria laid down by the Rules. Consequently, the college is given approval by the Bar Council of India for conducting 5 year integrated B.B.A. LL.B course with a total intake of 110 students of two batches and for 3 year LL.B course with an intake of 50 students of single batch as evident from Exhibit P1. Thus, the finding in Exhibit P5 report that the building provided for conducting the programme is 'temporary' holds no good and the same is proved otherwise. Thus, the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that Exhibit P5 report is dishonest with an intention to reject the affiliation and the same deserve to be quashed.
C. Writ court ought to have accepted the fact that appellant had provided adequate land and all necessary infrastructure, including legal education buildings with a built-up area of 40,000 square feet required for effectively running professional law courses by investing more than Rs. 10 Crores. The respondent has filed affidavit stating that DLIC had not recommended the proposed programme and as per the DLIC report, the college building is temporary, amenities are not provided W.A. 1846 of 2019 9 separately for male and female students. It is a three storied building with classes in all the 3 floors i.e. ground floor, first floor and second floor. More than 22 rooms are available for conducting classes excluding the Principal's room, administration area, staff room, library, seminar hall etc. All these facts are evident from the photographs produced by the Advocate Commissioner. Even as per the Exhibit P5 report, the total student strength in the college is 360. Thus, it is evident that there are adequate vacant rooms available in the academic building to start the new course. These facts are supported by the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner has reported with the support of photographs that the building is not temporary and adequate facilities are available. The report of the Commissioner shows that the findings of the DLIC is a dishonest, deceitful report. Thus, the learned Single Judge should have directed the University to grant affiliation as the appellant had complied with all the mandates as per the Rules.
D. Writ court has erroneously issued a direction to conduct another inspection by the DLIC. Once it is unveiled from the report of the Advocate Commissioner that the report of the DLIC is dishonest, then there is no point in directing the same authority to conduct a fresh inspection. This direction is futile and would only prolong the procedure laid down under the Rules to obtain affiliation from the Bar Council of India. Exhibit P5 report is ambiguous for the reason that it does not disclose any shortage in the facilities and infrastructure provided by the college. The report blatantly states that the present building in which the college functions cannot accommodate a new programme. As per the schedule for minimum infrastructure required in a centre for legal education attached along with Rule, a class room which would accommodate 60 students is sufficient in the academic building. Even W.A. 1846 of 2019 10 as per Exhibit P5 report, the total student strength in the College is 360. Thus, it is evident that there are adequate vacant rooms available in the academic building to start new course. During the hearing, it was submitted by the respondent that another inspection was conducted by the DLIC on 28th June, 2019. Nevertheless, no report or orders have been issued by the respondent based on that inspection. This shows the intent of the DLIC to create deceitful report. Writ court failed to appreciate the above contention and ignored the fact that the appellant has provided all the facilities as per the Rules."
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time when the writ petition was heard, respondent has submitted that yet another inspection was conducted by the DLIC on 28.06.2019. However, no report was submitted. It is further submitted that under such circumstances, writ court directed the respondent University to conduct inspection through DLIC and submit a report, within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, when this appeal was taken up, inspection has been conducted and report has been placed before the Syndicate. The Syndicate has found some deficiencies and hence, DLIC was ordered to conduct a further inspection and to file a fresh report. However, no further inspection was conducted. On the other hand, respondent has forwarded order dated 04.10.2019 (Annexure-I), wherein it is stated that DLIC has not recommended B.Com. L.L.B programme, for the reason that there is absence of qualified teachers and lack of sufficient books in the library.
W.A. 1846 of 2019 11
9. Inviting the attention of this Court to the first and the subsequent inspection reports, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that reasons assigned by the University to reject the request of the College for starting a new course B.Com L.L.B, are not justifiable. In the first inspection report, nothing adverse was recorded on the aspect of adequacy of books. College has the required books for the library. Fresh reasons have been assigned in the second inspection report, solely for the purpose of rejecting the request.
10. Writ court has not considered the learned Advocate Commissioner's report dated 02.02.2019, which is to the effect that the College has permanent buildings, sufficient facilities for male and female students. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the College has already given an undertaking that adequate staff would be appointed. On the aspect that the challenge to the interim order is lost, on account of the second inspection and rejection, he submitted that it is a continuous cause and hence, instant appeal is maintainable.
11. Mr.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel for the Calicut University, submitted that grant of affiliation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Referring to Statutes 9, 19 and 26 of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977, he submitted that a college has to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the Statutes. He further submitted that the Advocate Commissioner's report is only a piece of evidence and it is not binding on the University. College has W.A. 1846 of 2019 12 neither said that it has adequate staff, nor informed the University about the steps taken to appoint faculty members. College has not cured the defects also. There are no adequate books in the library.
12. Inviting the attention of this Court to the prayers made in the writ petition, he further submitted that the prayers sought for in this appeal cannot be granted, because it is beyond the scope of the writ petition. He further submitted that the present challenge to the interim order is lost when the Syndicate has already taken a decision to reject the request for affiliation. In the instant appeal, fresh events are stated which give rise to fresh cause of action and subsequent events cannot be taken into account while testing the correction of the impugned judgment. For the aforesaid reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
14. Bar Council of India has framed Rules of Legal Education, 2008 The academic infrastructure required as per Rule 15 of the Rules is as follows:
"Academic infrastructure
15. Minimum Library requirement: To start with, a Law Library shall have a set of AIR manual, combo offer of C.D. of AIR Pvt. Ltd. (containing electronic version of AIR Supreme Court and High Court Data Bases Research 1950-2015 (four connections each) Cr. L.J. Data Base 1950-2015 (four W.A. 1846 of 2019 13 connections) AIR Privy Council Data Base 1900-1950 (four connections) AIR Manual Latest 6 th Edition (1-45 Vols.) AIR Journal 2015, Cr.L.J.2015, L.I.C. 2015, AIR Civil Cases 2015, AIR Law Lines 2015, AIR Cheque Dishonour Reports 2015, AIR Accident Claims and Compensation 2015, Institution shall get electronic versions updated every year by AIR Pvt. Ltd., Central Acts and Local Acts, Criminal law journal, SCC, Corporate Law Advisor, Company cases, Indian Bar Review, selected Judgements on Professional Ethics and Journals with the back volumes for at least ten years and also such number of text books in each subjects taught during the period according to the minimum standard ratio of ten books for each registered students. For running integrated program, text books of such other subjects are also to be kept in the similar minimum ratio. The minimum investment in Library in each academic year shall be Rupees Fifty thousand for one stream and Rupees One Lakh for both the streams."
15. Statutes 9, 19 and 26 of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977 are extracted hereunder:
"9. Grant of Affiliation:-
(a) The University may appoint a Commission to inspect the proposed site of a new college/or to make a physical verification of the facilities that may exist for starting the new college/course, if the application is considered favourably by the University. The Commission will inspect the suitability of the proposed site, verify the title deeds as regards the proprietory right of the Management over the land (and buildings, if any) offered, building accommodation provided if W.A. 1846 of 2019 14 any, assets of the Management, constitution of the registered body and all other relevant matters. Further action on the application shall be taken on receipt of the report of this commission.
(b) The grant of affiliation shall depend upon the fulfilment by the Management of all the conditions that are specified here or that may be specified later for the satisfactory establishment and maintenance of the proposed institution/ courses of studies and on the reports of inspection by the Commission or Commissions which the University may appoint for the purpose.
(c) Unless all the contentions are fulfilled, before the commencement of the academic year, no new college/or additional courses shall be permitted to be started during that year.
(d) Educational agency/Management, the Principal or any other person or persons on their behalf shall neither demand nor accept donations from candidates for appointment to the staff and from students for admission to the college.
(e) The Management shall be prepared to abide by such conditions and instructions as regards staff, equipment, library, reading room, play-grounds, hostels, etc., as the University may, from time to time impose or issue in relation to the college.
(f) The Educational Agency/Management shall give an undertaking to the University to carry out faithfully, the provisions of the University Act, Statutes, Ordinances, and Regulations and the directions issued by the University from time to time, in so far as they are related to the college. The undertaking shall be endorsed by the Principal of the College.W.A. 1846 of 2019 15
(g) After considering the report of the local enquiry, if any, and after making such further enquiry as it may deem necessary, the Syndicate shall decide after considering the report of the local enquiry and also after ascertaining the views of the Government, whether the affiliation be granted or refused, either in whole or in part. In case the affiliation is granted, the fact shall be reported to the Senate at its next meeting."
19. Conditions to be satisfied by affiliated colleges:-
(a) Every College affiliated to the University shall comply with and duly observe the provisions in the law of the University in so far as they are applicable to the College.
(b) All changes in the membership of the Governing Body or the Managing Council and all appointments, transfer, promotions, demotions or dismissals of teachers of the Colleges with name, qualification and designation shall forthwith be reported to the Syndicate.
(c) No student shall be admitted to any course of instruction in the college in anticipation of affiliation."
26. Matters to be complied with for seeking affiliation:
(1) Every College shall satisfy the Syndicate on the following aspects:
(i) that the college if started will supply a need of the locality, having regarding to the type of education intended to be provided by the college, the facilities existing for the same type of education in the neighbourhood and the suitability of the locality;
(ii) the suitability and adequacy of the buildings, libraries, laboratories and other equipments;W.A. 1846 of 2019 16
(iii) the character, qualifications and adequacy of the teaching staff and the conditions of their service;
(iv) the buildings in which the college is to be located are suitable and that provision will be made in conformity with the laws of the University for the residence in the college or in lodging approved by the college, if students not residing with their parents or guardian and for the supervision and welfare of students;
(v) Such other matters as are essential for the maintenance of the tone and standard of University education.
(2) In regard to the matters referred to in clause (1), the Syndicate shall be guided by the reports of Inspection Commission and by the rules which may be prescribed by it."
16. In the application for Upgrading a College/Additional Affiliation (Exhibit-P3), as against column No.23(a) Details of existing staff in the subjects proposed to be started, the College has enclosed an undertaking as Annexure-3. As against column No.23(b) Additional staff for 1 st year, 2nd year and 3rd year, the College has enclosed an undertaking. As per column No.24, whether the management is willing to appoint a Selection Committee for the recruitment of Staff in accordance with Rule 2 of Chapter 57 of the University Ordinances, the College has agreed by stating, 'Yes'.
17. Inspection report dated 22.03.2018 (Ext-P5) is extracted hereunder:
"UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL W.A. 1846 of 2019 17 REPORT OF INSPECTION ADDITIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-19 & 2019-2020 1 Name and address of the College KMCT LAW COLLEGE, MAMPRA, PAZHUR P.O., KUTTIPURAM 2 Name of the Agency running the KUNHI THARUVAI MEMORIAL college CHARITABLE TRUST B.COM LL.B - 120 Seats 3 Programme Applied 4 Common Courses 5 Whether the management is prepared to abide by the rules and conditions of the University including constitution of the Governing body/Managing Council and College Council 6 Whether minimum required equipments, apparatus and chemicals are available for practical purpose (if applicable) 7 Total students strength in the 360 college 8 Existing programmes in the College (Attach separate sheet if (Specify Core, Complementary and required) common courses) BBA LLB 9 Accomodation Buildings Temporary available for conducting programmes Furniture W.A. 1846 of 2019 18 Basic amenities Nil provided separate for male and female students Total number of 4399 books English Malayalam Hindi Library Other Languages 10 Core Subject Complementary Subjects No. of journals & Periodicals 46 subscribed to 11 Laboratory Facilities Available 12 Computer available including internet facility 13 Facilities provided for cultural and Not satisfactory sports activities for the students 14 Teaching faculty with details of No qualification and experience (Attach separate sheet if required) Programme Intake Complementary courses 15 New programmes recommended (specifying complementary courses and intake 16 If not recommended, specify the Present building in which the reason thereof college functions cannot accommodate a new programme.W.A. 1846 of 2019 19
Dr. C.Abdul Majeed Sd/-
17 Name and signature of the Convener (convener)
and members of the DLIC conducted
inspection
Syma Prasad.K. Sd/-
Thomas Mathew M. Sd/-
18. Perusal of the Exhibit-P5 inspection report shows that the abovesaid reasons are given for rejecting the request for starting additional programme and ultimately, the University has refused to recommend on the ground that the building in which the College is functioning, cannot accommodate a new programme. University has not stated anything about the inadequacy of books.
19. In the inspection conducted on 22.03.2018 (Exhibit-P5), the deficiencies noted were as hereunder;
Buildings Temporary
Accommodation Furniture
available for
9 Basic amenities Nil
conducting provided separate
programmes for male and female
students
13 Facilities provided for cultural and Not satisfactory
sports activities for the students
14 Teaching faculty with details of
qualification and experience (Attach separate sheet if required)
W.A. 1846 of 2019 20
20. Order dated 04.10.2019 [Annexure-I] produced along with I.A. No.1 of 2019 is reproduced as hereunder:
"UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT Abstract CDC - Application for additional affiliation to B.Com LLB Programme at KMCT Law College Kuttippuram for the academic year 2019-20 - re- inspection report submitted by the DLIC - Syndicate Resolution No.2019.875 dated 19/09/2019 - implemented - orders issued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDC-A U.O.No. 14055/2019/Admn Dated, Calicut University P.O., 04.10.2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read:- 1. Notification No.161918/CDC-A3/2017/Admn dated 29.09.2017
2. U.O.No.8975/2018/Admn. dated 27.07.2018.
3. Syndicate Resolution No.2019.875 dated 19/09/2019.
4. Orders of the vice Chancellor dated 28/09/2019 ORDER In response to Notification cited 1st, the Principal, KMCT Law College, Kuttippuram had submitted an application for starting B.Com LLB programme during the academic year 2018-2019 and 2019-20. The District Level Inspection Commission appointed by the Syndicate conducted inspection at the College and submitted the report without recommending the proposed programme due to the reason that the present building in which the college functions cannot accommodate a new programme.
2. The Syndicate held on 21.07.2018, has considered the reports submitted by the DLICs concerned regarding the inspection conducted for granting of new programmes for the academic year 2018-19 and 2019-20 including that of KMCT Law College and resolved to accept the DLIC report vide U.O. Read as 2nd above.
3. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated 20/02/2019, in WP(C)-1736/2019, it was resolved to conduct a re-W.A. 1846 of 2019 21
inspection in all those colleges, with valid applications and whose applications for additional affiliation (in response to notification 29.09.2017) were rejected, on receipt of specific requests from the Principals concerned and also after levying a re-inspection fee of Rs25,000/-. Accordingly, the college requested to conduct re-inspection at their college and subsequently re-inspection has been conducted by the DLIC and submitted the report. The DLIC has not recommended the B.com LLB programme due to the reasons that absence of qualified teachers and lack of sufficient books in the library.
4. considering the whole matter in detail, the Vice Chancellor has ordered to place the re-inspection report submitted by the DLIC before the Syndicate for consideration.
5. The Syndicate meeting held on 19/09/2019 vide paper read as 3 rd above, considered the re-inspection report submitted by the DLIC inspect of KMCT Law College, Kuttippuram for starting additional programmes during the academic year 2019-20 and approved the same.
6. Sanction has, therefore, been accorded by the Vice Chancellor on 28/09/2019 to implement the Syndicate Resolution No.2019.875 dated 19/09/2019.
7. The Syndicate Resolution No.2019.875 dated 19/09/2019 is, thus implemented.
8. Orders are issued accordingly.
Abdul Rasak K. Assistant Registrar To The Principal, KMCT Law College, Kuttippuram, Mampara Pazhoor (P.O), Malappuram - 679571.
Copy to PS to VC/PA to PVC/PA to R/SF Forwarded/By Order Section Officer"W.A. 1846 of 2019 22
21. Material on record discloses that the respondent University has communicated order dated 23.10.2019 [Annexure-II], wherein it is stated that DLIC entrusted by the University has already conducted a re-inspection at the appellant college on 28.06.2019 and submitted a report [Annexure-II(a)], without recommending the programme for the following reasons:
(i) Absence of qualified teachers, and
(ii) Lack of sufficient books in the library.
22. Annexures-II & II(a), which is the Inspection report of the DLIC dated 28.06.2019, are extracted hereunder:
Annexure-II "UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT CDC-A NO.182003/CDC-A3/2018/Admn. Calicut University Dated:23.10.2019 From Registrar To The Principal, KMCT Law College, Kuttippuram, Mampara Pazhoor (P.O.), Malappuram-679571.
Sub:- CDC - Additional affiliation - compliance of the judgment dated 11/07/2019 in Writ Petition (C) No.29791 of 2018 - informing of - regarding Ref:- 1. The judgment dated 11.07.2019 in Writ Petition(C) No.29791 of 2018
2. Report of the DLIC dated 28/06/2019
3. The Syndicate resolution No.2019.875 dated 19/09/2019 and subsequent U.O. 14055/2019/Admn dated 04/10/2019.
Kind attention is invited to the reference cited 1 st wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has directed this University to take expeditious steps to conduct an inspection through the DLIC with regard to the application W.A. 1846 of 2019 23 submitted by the College for starting B.Com LLB programme and obtain a report from it within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The University has also been directed to furnish a copy of the inspection report to the petitioner and deficiencies if any shall also be intimated, within the said period.
In this connection, I am to inform you that the DLIC entrusted by the University has already conducted a re-inspection at your college on 28/06/2019 and submitted the report without recommending the above said programme due to the reasons, viz., (i) absence of qualified teachers, and
(ii) lack of sufficient books in the library, vide paper read as 2nd above. The meeting of the Syndicate held on 19/09/2019 has considered the inspection report of the DLIC and resolved to approve the same vide paper read as 3rd above.
You are therefore, informed that the application referred in the judgment cited 1st, cannot be processed further for the above reasons. A copy of the inspection report of the DLIC is attached herewith, for ready reference.
Encl.: 1. Report of the DLIC dated 28/06/2019.
2. UO- 14055/2019/Admn dated 04/10/2019.
Yours faithfully Praveena R Joint Registrar (For Registrar)"
Annexure-II(a) "UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT COLLEGE DEVELOMENT COUNCIL REPORT OF INSPECTION ADDITIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-19 & 2019-2020
1. Name and address of the College : KMCT Law College, Kuttippuram
2. Name of the Agency running the college : Kunhi Tharuval Memorial Charitable Trust W.A. 1846 of 2019 24
3. Programmes Applied : B.Com LLB
4. Common courses : N.A. Whether the management is permitted to
5. abide by the rules and conditions of the University including constitution of the Government body/Managing Council and : Yes College Council.
Whether minimum required equipments
6. are available for practical purpose (if applicable) : N.A.
7. Total Students strength in the college :
8. Existing programmes in the college (Specify ...Complementary and common : 3 Year LLB & BBA LLB courses)
9. Buildings Accommodated and Furniture available for conducting the programmes Basis amenities provided separate for male : Satisfactory and female students.
Total number of books English Malayalam Hindi
10. Library Other Languages Core Subject Complementary Not sufficient Subjects No. of ............
11. Laboratory facilities available : Not applicable
12. Computer available, including internet facility
13. Facilities provided for cultural and sports activities for the students : Not sufficient
14. Teaching faculty with details of qualification and experience.
W.A. 1846 of 2019 25
(Attach separate sheet if required)
15. New programmes recommended (specifying complementary courses and : Not recommended intake)
16. If not recommended, specify the reason thereof : 1) Absence of qualified teachers
2) No sufficient books in library Sd/-
(Convener)
17. Name and signature of the Convener and members of DLIC conducted inspection : ....
DLIC Report-Additional programme"
23. What are the amenities not provided separately for male and female students are not specified. What are the facilities provided for the cultural and sports activities for the students, which DLIC found not satisfactory, have also not been stated. College is already functioning with a B.A. L.L.B Course. Inadequacy on the above aspects had not been specifically mentioned. In the first DLIC inspection report, it was recorded that the buildings are temporary. Whereas, in the second DLIC inspection report, the University has stated that it was satisfied with the buildings, which shows that DLIC has not verified the details properly.
24. In the first DLIC inspection report dated 22.03.2018, the reason for rejecting the request was present building in which the College is functioning, cannot accommodate a new programme. Perusal of the answers given in columns 23 and 24 of the application submitted by the College shows that W.A. 1846 of 2019 26 there was a clear undertaking by the College to appoint faculty members. At the risk of repetition, they are reproduced.
"23) a) Details of existing staff in the Undertaking enclosed as subjects proposed to be started. annexure 3
b) Additional staff for 1st year, 2nd Undertaking enclosed as year and 3rd year. annexure.
24) Whether the management is Yes willing to appoint a Selection Committee for the recruitment of Staff in accordance with rule 2 of Chapter 57 of the University Ordinances.
25. The undertakings given by the College take care of appointment of faculty members. The total number of books in the library as mentioned in the report dated 22.03.2018 (Ext.P5) was '4399', which includes 46 journals and periodicals. No deficiency was noticed in the first inspection report. Whereas, in the second inspection report, it is stated that there is lack of sufficient books in the library. Thus, it could be deduced from the two inspection reports that DLIC has taken a different stand. Fresh reasons have been assigned in the second inspection report.
26. At this juncture, it is relevant to consider the interim order of the writ court dated 14.01.2019, by which an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. In the said order, writ court observed thus:
"The University had taken decision on the factual aspects. The petitioner wants contradict that fact finding. The question whether the decision of the University is erroneous W.A. 1846 of 2019 27 or not can be decided only after adverting to the facts. The matter is related to affiliation. The commissioner report would only be a piece of evidence. It cannot itself decide an issue. The observation of the inspection team is correct or not can be decided with reference to the commission report. It is only to help the Court for a proper decision appointment of a commissioner is sought. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the application can be allowed........"
27. Report of the learned Advocate Commissioner dated 02.02.2019, on the deficiencies stated by the DLIC, is reproduced as hereunder:
"As per order in I.A No:1/2018 in the above writ petition, I was appointed as Advocate Commissioner to conduct the local inspection and report to this Hon'ble Court regarding the question indicated I.A No:1/2018 as well as per the work memo if any submitted by the petitioner or the respondent.
As per the order of the Hon'ble High Court, it was decided to conduct the Inspection on 24.01.2019 @11.30 A.M. Accordingly, a notice dated 21.01.2019 was issued and served on the Counsel for the petitioner and respondent intimating the fact that inspection is proposed to be conducted on 24.01.2019 @11.30 A.M as well as requested both the petitioner and respondent to submit an additional work memo if required. The copy of the said notice is annexed along with this report. Accordingly, the petitioner alone had submitted additional work memo.
I had reached the petitioner institution on 24.01.2019 @11.15 a.m. The principal of the petitioner college was present at the spot of inspection. But, apart from waiting for another 15 minutes, neither counsel for the respondent or its authorized representatives were present at the time W.A. 1846 of 2019 28 of inspection. So, I was constrained to commence the commission examination, in the absence of the respondent and their counsel. I have entered the plaint scheduled property and inspected the same.
THE POINTS WHICH THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER WAS DIRECTED TO MAKE THE INSPECTION
1. Ascertain whether the building provided by the petitioner is temporary or permanent in nature. Photographs denoting the present nature of the buildings may also be taken: On Inspection it was found that the building, where the petitioner is running the college is newly constructed and completed permánent structure. It was found on inspection that, building in question has three floors including the ground floor. The photos attached.
2. Ascertain whether amenities are provided separately for male and female students: In each floor there are separate provisions and amenities including toilets provided for the male and female students of the college. There are separate amenities for the faculties also. Apart from that a common room is earmarked for the female students in the college in the ground floor.
3. Report the details of the library, books and facilities: In the North Eastern Side of the ground floor, there is library having an approximate area of more than 4000 Sq. ft. having sufficient reference books, 5 computers and Photostat machines. On the one side of the library a separate room which is air conditioned is maintained, having around 24 computers meant for research purposes.
4. Ascertain whether a playground is provided for short activities:- I could identify a place which is earmarked as playground for sports activities.
5. Other aspects that may be pointed out at the time of inspection:W.A. 1846 of 2019 29
Ground Floor First Floor Second Floor
Principal's 1 Lecture Rooms 12 Lecture Rooms 5
Office
Board Room 1 Faculty Room 2 Faculty Room 2
Faculty Room 2 Toilet for Faculties 1 Moot Court Hall 1
Office 1 Boys Toilet 1 Seminar Hall 1
Record Room 1 Girls Toilet 1 Boys Toilet 1
Library 1
Computer 1
Room
Exam 1
Controller
Room
Lecture Rooms 2
Common room 1
for femal
students
Boys Toilet 1
Girls Toilet 1
I am submitting herewith the order of commission after duly performing the directions of this Honourable court, the Notice of intimation of inspection duly signed by both counsel for petitioner and respondent as well as few photographs are produced along with this report."
28. Writ court having appointed an Advocate Commissioner with a clear note that the report would be a piece of evidence to ascertain the facts pleaded by the University at the time of final hearing of the writ petition, ought to have considered the report. There is no consideration of the learned Advocate Commissioner's report in the judgment of the writ court. Exhibit-P5 inspection report dated 22.03.2018 is bereft of reasons as to how it came to the conclusion that the building in which the college is functioning, is not sufficient to start a new course.
W.A. 1846 of 2019 30
29. In Al-Karim Educational Trust and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (1996) 8 SCC 330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"12. In the totality of the circumstances disclosed in the case and having regard to the fact that at each stage new deficiencies are being pointed out, the latest being the report dated 28-6-1995 (explained by the subsequent affidavit of the appellants dated 4-9-
95), we are satisfied beyond any manner of doubt, that the deficiencies have been substantially complied with and minor deficiencies pointed out in the last mentioned report of 28-6-95 are not such as to permit withholding of the affiliation to which the appellants' institution is entitled. From the manner in which the deficiencies have been pointed out from time to time, each time the old deficiencies are shown to have been removed, new deficiencies are shown, gives the impression that the affiliation is unnecessarily delayed. For the removal of the minor deficiencies pointed out in the report of 28-6-95, a compliance affidavit dated 4-9-1995 is filed, Once the institution feels secure on the question of affiliation, we have no doubt that these minor deficiencies, if they exist shall be taken care of by those in charge of the institution. For taking such further steps, the grant of affiliation need not wait. We make this position clear. The steps for the grant of affiliation to the appellants institution may now be expedited and we direct the respondents to issue the necessary orders without loss of time. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs."
30. We are not in agreement with the contention that in view of the subsequent inspection report dated 28.06.2019 [Annexure-II(a)], challenge to W.A. 1846 of 2019 31 the interim order is lost. Respondent University cannot be permitted to fish out piecemeal reasons for rejecting the request of the College.
In the light of the above discussions and decision, we are inclined to set aside the judgment impugned. Hence, judgment dated 11.07.2019 in W.P. (C) No.29791 of 2018 and the inspection reports dated 22.03.2018 as well as 28.06.2019 [Exhibit-P5 & Annexure-II(a)] are set aside. Writ appeal is allowed. University of Calicut is directed to consider the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner also and grant affiliation to the appellant College, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
S.Manikumar, Chief Justice Sd/-
C.T.Ravikumar, Judge krj W.A. 1846 of 2019 32 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE-I:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O. NO.14055/2019/ADMN. DATED 04.10.2019 PASSED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE-II:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED OCTOBER 23, 2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE-II(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED JUNE 28, 2019. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE