Madras High Court
Dr.Mgr Educational & Research ... vs The Union Of India on 18 August, 2022
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.No.17100 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 05.08.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 18.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.No.17100 of 2022 &
W.M.P.Nos.16400 & 16401 of 2022
1.Dr.MGR Educational & Research Institute
(Deemed to be University),
Represented by its Registrar,
Dr.C.B.Palanivelu,
S/o. Late Sri C.K.Balakrishnan
Aged about 55 years,
University Campus,
Periyar EVR Highway Maduravoyal,
Chennai – 600 095.
2.Raja Rajeswari Medical College and Hospital, Bengaluru,
Represented by its Dean,
Dr.B.Sathyamurthy,
S/o. Sri K.V.Burly,
Aged about 65 years,
No.202, Kambipura,
Mysore Road, Bengaluru – 560 074 ... Petitioners
vs.
1.The Union of India,
by its Secretary,
Ministry of Education,
Department of Higher Education,
ICR Division, Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17100 of 2022
2.University Grants Commission (UGC),
By its Secretary,
Bahadhur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi – 110002.
3.State of Karnataka,
By its Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical Education,
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhan Soudha,
Bengaluru ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under section 226 of Constitution of India for
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus quashing the impugned order and
notification bearing no.10/4/2018-U.3(A) dated 24.05.2022, issued by the
first respondent, as being illegal and void ab initio and consequently, direct
the first respondent to issue a notification after giving an opportunity of
being heard to the petitioners to include the second petitioner institution
within the ambit of the first petitioner Deemed to be University.
For petitioners : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel,
for Mr.V.P.Raman
For respondent 1 : Mr.K.Srinivasan Moorthy,
Senior Panel Counsel
For respondent 2 : Mr.Rabu Manohar,
Central Government Standing Counsel
For respondent 3 : Mr.G.Karthikeyan
2/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17100 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order and notification both dated 24.05.2022 issued by the first respondent.
2. The first petitioner is a deemed university having its office at Chennai. The second petitioner is a college at Bangalore affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University, Bangalore. The first petitioner submitted an application/proposal to the first respondent to include the second petitioner college under its ambit from the Academic Year 2018-2019 onwards. The second petitioner also submitted its request to the third respondent for the issuance of No Objection Certificate for inclusion of their institution under the ambit of the first petitioner (deemed university), from the academic year 2018-19 onwards.
3. The second respondent vide its letter dated 05.10.2018 informed the first petitioner about the formation of their Expert Committee and their visit to the second petitioner college, in order to process the proposal of the first petitioner. The second respondent in its 536th Meeting held on 14.11.2018 considered the report of the Expert Committee and approved the 3/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 proposal for inclusion of the second petitioner within the ambit of the first petitioner. Thereafter the second respondent vide letter dated 15.11.2018 addressed to the third respondent sought its comments in respect of the second petitioner about its potential, academic excellence and financial viabilities for bringing it under the ambit of the first petitioner as per Clauses 8.1l and 8.11.1 of UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2016. The third respondent submitted its comments to the first respondent on 14.01.2019 rejecting the proposal to include the second petitioner into the ambit of the first petitioner citing that the proposal will be detrimental to the students of Karnataka.
4. However, the first respondent issued ambit notification dated 14.02.2019 declaring and including the second petitioner college within the ambit of the first petitioner. The second petitioner vide its letter dated 16.08.2019 brought it to the knowledge of the Rajiv Gandhi University, Bangalore about the ambit notification dated 14.02.2019 and once again requested for issuance of disaffiliation certificate. Rajiv Gandhi University refused to disaffiliate the second petitioner vide its letter dated 07.03.2020. 4/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022
5. Thereafter, the petitioners filed W.P.No.7482 of 2022 before the Karnataka High Court along with Moogambigai Charitable and Educational Trust and the third respondent (State of Karnataka) also filed W.P.No.9236 of 2020 challenging the ambit notification dated 14.02.2019 issued by the first respondent. The Karnataka High Court by way of a common order dated 03.11.2020 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners and allowed the writ petition filed by the State of Karnataka. Aggrieved by the said common order, the petitioners therein approached the Division bench of Karnataka High Court by filing W.A.Nos.549 and 550 of 2020. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court by a common order dated 30.11.2021 in W.A.Nos.549 & 550 of 2020 remitted the matter back to the second respondent (UGC) as well as the first respondent (Central Government) to pass a speaking order, after considering the comments of the Karnataka State Government. Thereafter, the first respondent has passed the impugned notification and the order both dated 24.05.2022 withdrawing the earlier ambit notification of the first respondent dated 14.02.2019 issued in favour of the first petitioner.
5/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022
6. The petitioners have challenged the impugned notification and the order both dated 24.05.2022 withdrawing the earlier ambit notification of the first respondent dated 14.02.2019 on the following grounds:
(a) The impugned notification and the order has been passed by violating the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners before passing of the impugned notification and the order.
(b) No reasons have been given under the impugned notification and the order for rejecting the first petitioner's proposal to bring the second petitioner college within its ambit and therefore, the impugned notification suffers from infirmity and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
(c) The impugned notification and the order is in direct violation of the order of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in W.A.Nos.549 and 550 of 2020 dated 30.11.2021. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court had directed the UGC as well as the Central Government to pass speaking order after complying with the mandate contained in Regulation 13.09.
(d) The view of the third respondent that the disaffiliation of the second petitioner from the ambit of Rajiv Gandhi University would not 6/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 benefit the students of Karnataka, is not supported by any statistical or verifiable data. The State Government has failed to substantiate by reasons for rejecting to disaffiliate the second petitioner College.
(e) The petitioners were never given an opportunity to explain whether the ambit notification of the first respondent would be beneficial to the students of Karnataka State or not. According to the petitioners, the proposal made by the first petitioner was in compliance with all aspects of the norms stipulated by the second respondent.
(f) The first respondent ought to have considered the fact that the impugned notification and the order has serious civil consequences and therefore, the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to explain.
(g) Regulation 13.09 of the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be University) Regulations, 2016 states that the views of the concerned State Government shall be examined by the Commission before making recommendation to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. However, this regulation does not make the views of the State Government binding on the UGC or Central Government from taking any decision independently in this regard.
7/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022
(h) The second respondent while considering the views of the Government of Karnataka ought to have considered about the repercussions that would be faced by the students admitted to the second petitioner institution pursuant to the ambit notification dated 14.02.2019. The fate of students admitted to the second petitioner institution during last 3 years is at stake. Therefore, the impugned notification and the order has been passed without any application of mind.
(i) The first and second respondents ought to have considered the fact that the curriculum under which the students were admitted during the academic years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 would be entirely different from that of the students studying under Rajiv Gandhi University.
(j) The first respondent (Union of India) acting on the advice of the second respondent, UGC, withdrew the ambit notification dated 14.02.2019 without considering about the further education of those students already admitted pursuant to the said notification.
(k) Based on the ambit notification dated 14.02.2019, the first petitioner has made huge investments to develop and strengthen the research activities at the second petitioner institution. The respondents have not taken note of the said fact.
8/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022
(l) The impugned notification and the order are not in consonance with chapter 10.12 of the New Education Policy 2020, framed by the Ministry of Human Resource, Government of India. The said regulation reads as follows:
"10.12. The new regulatory system envisioned by this Policy will foster this overall culture of empowerment and autonomy to innovate, including by gradually phasing out the system of 'affiliated colleges' over a period of fifteen years through a system of graded autonomy, and to be carried out in a challenge mode. Each existing affiliating university will be responsible for mentoring its affiliated colleges so that they can develop their capabilities and achieve minimum benchmarks in academic and curricular matters; teaching and assessment; governance reforms; financial robustness; and administrative efficiency. All colleges currently affiliated to a university shall attain the required benchmarks over time to secure the prescribed accreditation benchmarks and eventually become autonomous degree-granting colleges. This will be achieved through a concerted national effort including suitable mentoring and governmental support for the same."
9/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022
(m) In pursuance of the ambit notification and in the light of the interim order dated 02.12.2020 passed in W.A. No.550 of 2020 before the Karnataka High Court, the seats in the second petitioner college for the academic years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 for the under graduate, post graduate and super specialty courses were allotted by the first petitioner University through the Counseling conducted by the Directorate General of Health Sciences (DGHS). As of today, two batches of students admitted prior to ambit notification are having the curriculum fixed by the Rajiv Gandhi University. The last 3 batches of students admitted after the ambit notification are under the curriculum fixed by the first petitioner. Now, due to the withdrawal of the ambit notification, the students admitted after the ambit notification are left in lurch. Further, it has caused serious damage to the reputation of the petitioners amongst the existing and prospective students and the public at large. Therefore, it is necessary to protect the interest of the current as well as the prospective students to continue with the administrative system through DGHS under the first petitioner. As the dates for the counseling for PG Courses may be notified at any time and the NEET exams for the UG and Super Specialty courses are slated to be 10/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 conducted in the month of July and August, there is a grave urgency for an interim order to safeguard the interest of the students.
(n) The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and is liable to be struck down for not furnishing reasons. The petitioner has prima facie shown that the present case satisfies "Wednesbury" test for reasonableness. Excepting for mechanically extracting the recommendation of UGC, the impugned order does not go any further. The petitioners will suffer irreparably if the impugned order is allowed to operate that too, when reasons have been provided for the withdrawal of the earlier notification dated 14.02.2019. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioners.
7. After perusing and examining the contents of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, this Court raised a preliminary issue and requested the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners to address this Court on the maintainability of this writ petition before this Court on the ground that the impugned notification as well as the impugned order has been issued by the respondents, only pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court. The learned senior counsel was requested to address this court on the issue of territorial 11/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 jurisdiction of this Court in respect of an order/notification passed pursuant to directions issued by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court. Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
8. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners addressed this Court on the maintainability of this writ petition before this Court and would submit that this Court is having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition for the following reasons:
(a) The first petitioner deemed University is having its office only at Chennai and the impugned notification and the order withdrawing the earlier ambit notification granted in favour of the first petitioner was communicated to the first petitioner only at Chennai. Therefore, part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this High Court and hence, this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
(b) As per Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India, this Court has the power to issue writs or orders or actions to any Government in appropriate cases outside its territories for any purpose. In the present case, the State of Karnataka has been arrayed only as a proper party and not as a 12/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 necessary party. Their presence in the present case does not in any manner affect or take away the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the present writ petition filed challenging the impugned notification and the order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the Union of India withdrawing the earlier ambit notification dated 14.02.2019 issued in favour of the first petitioner is maintainable before this Court. As part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioners are entitled to file this writ petition before this Court even though the impugned notification and the order was passed in Bangalore.
(c) As per Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the High Court has got the power to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person outside its territorial limits, when the cause of action arises either wholly or in part within the territorial limits of that High Court.
This is further fortified by the presence of the non-obstante clause in the said provision that it is immaterial as to the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person. In view of the above provision and in the light of part of cause of action having arisen within the territorial limits of this Court, all the respondents are amenable to this Court. 13/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022
9. In support of his submissions, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would rely upon the following authorities namely:
(a) Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao reported in 1953 SCR 1144;
(b) K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission reported in 1954 SCR 738;
(c) Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India reported in (1961) 2 SCR 828;
(d) Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640;
(e) Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254;
(f) Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India reported in (2006) 6 SCC 207;
(g) Sun TV Limited v. Tata Sky Limited reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Mad 562;
(h) Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329;
14/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022
(i) Shanti Devi v. Union of India reported in (2020) 10 SCC 766;
(j) Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2483.
Discussion:
10. Admittedly, the impugned notification and the order dated 24.05.2022 withdrawing the earlier ambit notification dated 14.02.2019 has been passed by the first respondent only pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on 30.11.2021 in W.A.Nos.549 & 550 of 2020. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in its common order dated 30.11.2021 passed in W.A.Nos.549 & 550 of 2020 remanded the matter for fresh consideration and directed the first and second respondents to pass a speaking order in respect of the proposal submitted by the first petitioner (Deemed University) to bring within its ambit the second petitioner college by complying with the mandate contained in Regulation 13.09 of the Regulations after taking the views of the Government of Karnataka within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the said order.
15/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022
11. In the impugned notification and the order both dated 24.05.2022 which has been issued pursuant to the directions given by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, it has been made clear that the UGC considered the views of the Government of Karnataka on the inclusion of the second petitioner college under the ambit of the first petitioner (deemed university). The Government of Karnataka has expressed its reservation by stating that it will not be in the interest of the students of Karnataka, if the second petitioner college is brought within the ambit of the first petitioner deemed University which is situated at Chennai. Only after considering the views of the Government of Karnataka and only pursuant to the directions given by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, the impugned notification as well as the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent withdrawing the earlier ambit notification dated 14.02.2019 issued in favour of the first petitioner (deemed university).
12. We shall now consider the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to supra and see whether those decisions have any bearing to the case on hand. 16/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022
13. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao reported in 1953 SCR 1144 was not a case where directions were issued by another High Court, based on which, an order or notification was issued. It deals with general cases where part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court. In the instant case, the impugned notification and the order has been passed only pursuant to the directions given by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. Further, the impugned notification and the order has been issued by the first respondent on the ground that the Government of Karnataka has expressed its objection for the second petitioner College to be brought within the ambit of the first petitioner (deemed university) on the ground that the students of Karnataka will be affected. Only in public interest, the impugned notification and the order has been passed. Therefore, the decision referred to supra has no applicability for the instant case as this case involves a notification and an order issued pursuant to the directions given by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court which is not so in Saka Venkata Rao's case referred to supra.
17/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022
14. The second decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners viz., K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission reported in 1954 SCR 738 was a decision which deals with the territorial jurisdiction of High Court, when part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. It did not deal with cases where an impugned order was passed pursuant to the directions given by another High Court, though part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the High Court where the writ petition was filed. Therefore, this decision also does not aid the petitioners to file this writ petition before the Madras High Court.
15. The third decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners viz., Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 once again deals with general cases where part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of a High Court, where the writ petition was filed. It has to be noted that even in the said decision, it has been made clear that to maintain a writ petition, the petitioners have to establish that a legal right claimed by them has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court's jurisdiction. In the case on hand, the petitioners had earlier approached the Karnataka High Court 18/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 for the refusal to grant no objection certificate by filing a writ petition there in W.P.No.7482 of 2020 which came to be dismissed on 03.11.2020. The said order was also challenged by the petitioners before the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in W.A.Nos.549 & 550 of 2020. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court by its common order dated 30.11.2021 in W.A.Nos.549 & 550 of 2020 remitted the matter back to the first and second respondents for fresh consideration and directed them to pass a speaking order after getting the views of the third respondent (Government of Karnataka). Only pursuant to the said directions, the impugned notification and the order came to be passed by the first and second respondents. The application for bringing the second petitioner within its ambit was submitted by the first petitioner only at Bangalore in Karnataka. Under the impugned notification and the order passed by the first and second respondents in Bangalore, the earlier ambit notification dated 14.02.2019 issued in favour of the first petitioner has been withdrawn. The earlier ambit notification dated 14.02.2019 issued in favour of the first petitioner was also issued by the first and second respondents only at Bangalore. Excepting for the first petitioner having its registered Office at Chennai and having received the impugned notification and the order at Chennai, the entire cause of action 19/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 arose only at Bangalore. The infringement of the petitioners' legal right has taken place at Bangalore, Karnataka only within the territorial jurisdiction of Karnataka High Court. Therefore, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 referred to supra does not enable the petitioners to file the writ petition before the Madras High Court.
16. The fourth decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners namely Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640 also does not involve a case as that of the present one. Navinchandra N. Majithia's case involves the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court over registration of FIR in Shillong, State of Megalaya. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Bombay High Court had territorial jurisdiction in view of the fact that the major portion of the investigation of the case under the FIR has to be conducted only at Bombay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court however has also made it clear in the said decision that the High Court before whom the writ petition is filed must ascertain whether any part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the said High Court and it depends upon 20/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 the facts in each case. The facts of the case on hand is totally different from the facts of Navinchandra N. Majithia's case referred to supra. In the case on hand, only pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, the impugned notification and order came to be passed and further, the petitioners had earlier approached the Karnataka High Court and having done so, they are now estopped from stating that Madras High Court is having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition in view of the fact that the first petitioner's office is at Chennai and the impugned notification and order was received by the first petitioner only at Chennai.
17. The following decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners viz., (a) Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India reported in (2006) 6 SCC 207 and (b)Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 also dealt with general cases of civil nature where part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court and it did not deal with cases where the impugned notification and the order was issued pursuant to the directions given by a particular High Court and the subject matter involves public authorities and 21/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 also involves public rights and interest. Therefore, the said decisions are also not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
18. In the case of Shanti Devi v. Union of India reported in (2020) 10 SCC 766 relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the said decision pertains to wrong withholding of the petitioner's retirement benefits. The petitioners had approached the Patna High Court which had dismissed its representation on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, since the writ petitioner served in the State of West Bengal under the authorities and organization which are located either in the States of West Bengal or Jharkand. Thereafter, he had filed a writ petition before the Jharkand High Court. When the matter was pending, his pension was stopped. He challenged the same before the Patna High Court by filing another writ petition. The learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court taking note of the earlier dismissal order and the pendency of the case before the Jharkand High Court, dismissed the writ petition. Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as the cause of action for the two writ petitions were different and the cause of action for the present writ petition arose within the jurisdiction of Patna 22/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 High Court where the writ petitioner resided and received pension, the Patna High Court has got the territorial jurisdiction and reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the cause of action for the two writ petitions are different, but whereas in the case on hand, the cause of action for passing of the impugned notification and the order is a continuation of the earlier cause of action namely the challenge made by the third respondent to the earlier ambit notification issued in favour of the first petitioner on 14.02.2019 by which the second petitioner college was brought within the ambit of the first petitioner (deemed university) which has now been withdrawn under the impugned notification and the order dated 24.05.2022. Further, in Shanti Devi's case referred to supra, it was a person centric litigation and did not involve any public rights and interest. But in the case on hand, the State of Karnataka has refused permission for bringing the second petitioner college within the ambit of the first petitioner (deemed university) on the ground of public interest i.e., they have stated that if such a notification is issued in favour of the first petitioner, it will be detrimental to the interest of the students of Karnataka. Since public rights and interest is involved in the case on hand, the aforesaid decision relied 23/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners will not aid the petitioners for the purpose of the maintainability of this writ petition before this Court.
19. The other decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners namely that of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2483 will also not aid the petitioners. In that case, the petitioner had filed an application for increase in intake of students to the National Medical Commission (NMC). The NMC informed the petitioner therein that the physical inspection could not be carried out in view of the pandemic and it decided to carry forward the application to the subsequent year. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court by way of a writ petition and the same was dismissed as it did not find any arbitrariness in the decision. Later the inspection was carried out by the NMC and despite the assessment report, NMC issued a communication citing the final order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in a Public Interest Litigation. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation and another 24/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 inspection was carried out. However, Medical Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) disapproved the application. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first appellate committee of the NMC and the same was rejected. The above order was challenged before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court held that the writ petition filed by the very same petitioner before the Delhi High Court was maintainable, since the cause of action for the second writ petition before the Delhi High Court arose only after the inspection as regards the availability of infrastructure of the institution was carried out afresh only after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition filed before the Madras High Court. The facts of the case on hand stands on a different footing and therefore, the Delhi High Court decision will not aid the petitioners to file this writ petition before this Court.
20. The facts which are having no bearing with the lis do not give the rise to cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. Even in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited's case relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, it has been made clear that the cause of action for challenging an order arises only at the place where the order is passed i.e., at the place where the legal right was infringed. The 25/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 mere service of the impugned notification and the order on the petitioners at Chennai will not amount to part of cause of action having arisen at Chennai. In the cases of State of Rajasthan vs. Swalka Properties reported in (1985) 3 SCC 217, Aligarh Muslim University vs. Vinay Engineering Enterprises (P) Limited reported in (1994) 4 SCC 710 and National Textile Corporation Limited vs Haribox Sawalram and others reported in JT 2004 4 SC 508, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere communication of a notice would not give rise to any cause of action, unless service of the said notice was an integral part of cause of action. Excepting for having office at Chennai and having received the impugned notification and order at Chennai, the integral part of cause of action never took place at Chennai and took place only at Bangalore where the first and second respondents have passed the impugned notification and the order, that too pursuant to the directions given only by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
21. There are number of specific causes of action including contract based actions and statutory based actions. The part of cause of action principle for the purpose of vesting a Court with the territorial jurisdiction varies for a contract based action and statutory based action. In the case of 26/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 contract based action, tests to be satisfied for part of cause of action is less stringent than for a statutory action. Therefore, whether part of cause of action arose within a particular court depends upon the nature of the action. The cause of action for a contract based action cannot be treated on par with the cause of action for a statutory action. In the case on hand, it is a statutory action and the impugned notification and the order have been issued only at Bangalore where the second petitioner college is located and the legal infringement of the first petitioner's right has taken place only there. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, no part of cause of action requesting for ambit notification in favour of the first petitioner to bring the second petitioner within its ambit arose within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court and it arose entirely only within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court.
22. The forum non conveniens is a common law legal doctrine through which a Court acknowledges that another forum or a court where the case might have been brought is a more appropriate venue for a legal case and transfers the case to such a forum. As a doctrine of the conflict of laws, forum non conveniens applies between courts in different 27/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 jurisdictions. A Concern often raised in applications of the doctrine is forum shopping or picking a court merely to gain an advantage in the proceeding. This concern is balanced against the public policy of deferring to the petitioner's choice of venue in claims where there may be more than one appropriate jurisdiction. In the case on hand, the appropriate court for deciding the lis is the Karnataka High Court as the impugned notification and the order have been issued only pursuant to the directions given by the Karnataka High Court and further, the first and second respondents passed the impugned notification and the order only at Bangalore, where the entire evidence is available pertaining to the second petitioner college which is sought to be brought under the ambit of the first petitioner (deemed university). Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is forum in conveniens for the Madras High Court to exercise its territorial jurisdiction as regards the impugned notification and the order.
23. The comity of courts also demands that this Court exercises restraint when it comes to exercising jurisdiction over a notification and order passed by the authorities at Bangalore, pursuant to the directions given by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. Judicial 28/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 Propriety also demands for this Court to exercise restraint that too when a Division Bench of a Co-ordinate High Court has passed an order which has culminated in the passing of the impugned notification and the order.
24. Federation is part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and it applies to Judiciary as well. Therefore, one High Court cannot exercise powers which under the normal circumstances would have been exercised only by the other High Court, where the impugned notification and the order was passed as in the case on hand. In the case on hand, only pursuant to the directions given by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, the impugned notification and the order came to be passed by the authorities at Bangalore, Karnataka. Above all, the very same petitioners had earlier approached the Karnataka High Court which ultimately culminated in the passing of the impugned notification and the order. Therefore, undoubtedly, the Karnataka High Court alone has got the jurisdiction to decide the challenge to the impugned notification and the order as it is the one and the only appropriate court of forum conveniens.
25. The case on hand also involves public interest. The reason for withdrawal of the earlier ambit notification dated 14.02.2019 under the impugned notification and the order is that the earlier ambit notification 29/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 dated 14.02.2019 is detrimental to the interest of the students in Karnataka. Therefore, any challenge to the impugned notification and the order can be made only before the Karnataka Courts as it involves the rights of the students in Karnataka who are either presently studying in the second petitioner college or they are desirous of studying in the said college in the near future. Being an action involving rights in rem i.e., the public at large necessarily the impugned notification and the order cannot be challenged before the Madras High Court and can be challenged if at all only before the Karnataka High Court as the entire evidence is only available at Bangalore, Karnataka and the impugned notification and the order was also passed there.
26. The principle of lis alibi pendens (dispute elsewhere pending) also applies to the case on hand. It applies to address the problem of potentially contradictory judgments. If two courts were to hear the same dispute it is possible they would reach inconsistent decisions. Lis alibi pendens arises from international comity and it permits a court to refuse exercising jurisdiction when there is a parallel litigation pending in another jurisdiction. In the case on hand, only pursuant to the directions given by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, the impugned notification and 30/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 the order has come to be passed. The integral part of the cause of action pertaining to the impugned notification and order arose only at Bangalore, Karnataka and if this court intervenes and entertains this writ petition, it may be detrimental to the interest of the State of Karnataka who may approach the Karnataka High Court in case of any interference by this Court which may result in inconsistencies and potentially contradictory judgments. Therefore, by applying the principle of lis alibi pendens, this Court cannot entertain this writ petition.
27. For the foregoing reasons, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction for the Madras High Court to entertain this writ petition, the same is dismissed. Registry is directed to return the writ petition along with the impugned notification and the order both dated 24.05.2022 to the petitioners to enable them to either file a fresh writ petition before the Karnataka High Court on the same cause of action or to represent this writ petition before the Karnataka High Court. No costs.
18.08.2022 nl Note : Issue order copy on 18.08.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking orders 31/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17100 of 2022 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
nl To
1.The Union of India, by its Secretary, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, ICR Division, Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.
2.University Grants Commission (UGC), By its Secretary, Bahadhur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110002.
3.State of Karnataka, By its Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Government of Karnataka, Vidhan Soudha, Bengaluru W.P.No.17100 of 2022 18.08.2022 32/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis