Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Trikoteswara Swamy Educational ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 April, 2023
Author: M. Ganga Rao
Bench: M. Ganga Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.29072 of 2017
ORDER:
The 1st petitioner - Sri Trikoteswara Swamy Educational Society represented by its Secretary N. Ramachandra Prasad and the 2nd petitioner - NBT & NVC College, represented by its Secretary & Correspondent, N. Ramachandra Prasad, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, filed this writ petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned G.O.Ms.No.17, Higher Education (CE) department, dated 30.03.2017, whereby the Government ordered to take over the management and assets of the 2nd petitioner college by the Government, in public interest, and further the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, was directed to take further action in the matter under the provision of Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, as being illegal, mala fide, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequentially to issue a direction to the respondents to repatriate the teaching and non-teaching staff of the 2nd petitioner college back, forthwith.
2. The facts which lead to the filing of the present writ petition are that earlier when the Government issued GORt.No.214 dated 23.09.2016 directing the 2nd respondent to take over the management and assets of the 2nd 2 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 petitioner college without considering the explanation submitted to the show cause notice dated 01.09.2015, and without recording any reasons, the petitioners filed WP.No.32811 of 2016. By orders dated 04.01.2-17, the said writ petition came to be disposed of granting liberty to the respondent- Government to withdraw the GO and to pass appropriate orders thereon. It was also observed that the respondents shall follow due process before taking any further course of action. Thereafter, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 30.03.2017 was issued. Challenging the said GO, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit and reply affidavit, submits that the 1st petitioner society established the 2nd petitioner college in the year 1984. Initially, the 2nd petitioner college was started with 148 students with B.A and B.Com courses. During the academic year 1990-91 the 2 nd petitioner college was admitted to Grant-in-aid. With the keen interest taken by the then Secretary & Croeespondent N.S. Chandra Sekhara Rao, during the year 1995 the students strength of the 2nd petitioner college was increased to 1200. Later, the 2nd petitioner college started B.Sc courses like B.Sc Electronics, Computers, M.P.C and B.Z.C. Due to local politics, the development of the 2nd petitioner college under the management of the then Secretary & Correspondent, N.S. Chandra Sekhar Rao had become an eye sore to the 5th 3 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 respondent, then local M.L.A and who, at the time of filing of the writ petition, was the speaker of A.P Legislative Assembly. The 5th respondent started interfering with the management of the college and got divided the managing body of the college into two groups. In the year 1995, CB CID enquiry was ordered and a case was registered as Crime No.87 of 1995. Later, CB CID filed charge sheet in the Court of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. Elaborate trial was conducted. At trial, 5th respondent was examined as Prosecution Witness No.3. The trial Court, after an elaborate trial acquitted all the accused by judgment, dated 03.04.2012. The 5th respondent unsuccessfully preferred appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Guntur, with a delay of 313 days and the same was dismissed on 23.10.2015. In the year 2011, the 1st petitioner society submitted an application to the 3rd respondent for permission to start a junior college in the college campus as it would be a feed back to the existing degree college. The 3rd respondent has constituted a committee consisting of two principals of two Government degree colleges viz., 1) Sri A.R.Government Degree College, Repalle and 2) Government degree college, Chebrole. The committee having inspected the college submitted a report to the 3rd respondent stating that the 2nd petitioner college is having good infrastructure with total 49 rooms consisting of well equipped class rooms, labs, dark rooms and administrative block, ladies waiting room, library with books worth Rs.10,00,000/-. During the year 2013- 4 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 14, there were 422 students and during the academic year 2014-15 there were 322 students in the 2nd petitioner college. The Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University to which the 2nd petitioner college was affiliated sent a committee consisting of Professor B. Kesava Rao and Dr.K.Gangadhara Rao to inspect the college vide letter dated 07.02.2014. The said committee inspected the college on 18.02.2014 without prior intimation to the college management during the preparation holidays for annual examinations. The committee submitted adverse report to the University and basing on the said report submitted by the committee, the Registrar of Acharya Nagarjuna University had issued a show cause notice dated 07.04.2014 asking the 2nd petitioner college to submit explanation within 15 days as to why the grant of temporary affiliation to the college for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 shall not be withdrawn. The 2nd petitioner college submitted detailed explanation to the notice denying the allegations made in the report and submitted that there are no grounds to withdraw the temporary affiliation to the college. The Registrar of the University passed order vide ANU / Affi./ NBT&NVC/ Dis.Affi./2014-15 dated 03.09.2014, stating that the Vice Chancellor has ordered that the affiliation of the 2nd petitioner college be withdrawn from the academic year 2014-15. Again, the 2nd petitioner college filed application for grant of affiliation. When the said application is kept pending without passing any orders, the petitioner filed WP.No.34247 of 2015 seeking a 5 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 direction to the Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University for granting affiliation for un-aided courses. The said writ petition is pending.
The 2nd petitioner college was admitted to grant-in-aid with eight teaching staff and 10 non teaching staff. The persons who were working in the above posts were also admitted in grant-in-aid vide G.O.Rt.No.2124 dated 16.11.1991. The 5th respondent, who had personal disputes with the then Secretary & Correspondent of the College, got transferred the teaching and non teaching staff to other colleges, to see that the college does not function well and the management is taken over by the Government. The Secretary and Correspondent of the 2nd petitioner college submitted application to the 2nd respondent on 23.03.2015 to repatriate the teaching and non-teaching staff back to the college but the 2nd respondent did not repatriate the aided teaching and non teaching staff back to the college. Due to lack of proper teaching and non teaching staff, the student strength of B.A and B.Com courses also have drastically come down. Due to lack of proper teaching and non teaching staff, the college could not run the courses in the college to its full capacity. In such a situation, the petitioners filed WP.No.11401 of 2016 to declare the inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering the petitioners application dated 23.03.2015 to repatriate aided teaching and non teaching staff back to the 2nd petitioner college. The said writ petition was disposed of 6 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 by an order dated 07.04.2016 directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioners application dated 23.03.2015 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order pursuant to which the 2nd respondent issued notice on 03.05.2016 to avail personal hearing on application dated 23.03.2015. The 2nd respondent after hearing rejected the application dated 23.03.2015 by order dated 27.05.2016. There is no valid reason to withdraw the teaching and non teaching staff from the college. Due to non availability of teaching and non teaching staff, naturally the student strength dwindled. Against the order dated 27.05.2016, passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the petitioners application for repatriation of the teaching and non teaching staff without considering the report submitted by Two Man Committee, the petitioners filed WP.No.19055 of 2016. This Court admitted the writ petition and passed interim order directing the respondents not to interfere with the management of the 2nd petitioner college.
On 22.06.2012, the 2nd respondent District Collector initiated action under the provisions of Section 60 of the A.P Education Act to take over the assets of the 2nd petitioner college. On the petitioners representation, the Government kept the orders in abeyance by proceedings, dated 02.07.2012 until further orders. It appears that the 2nd respondent submitted report to the Government on 30.07.2014 to take over the assets and management of the 2nd petitioner college. The 2nd respondent constituted a committee. The 7 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 committee submitted a report behind back of the petitioner to take over the assets and management of the 2nd petitioner college. On the basis of the report, a show case notice dated 01.09.2015 was served on the petitioner as to why the assets and management of the 2nd petitioner college should not be taken over, for which he submitted a detailed explanation stating that there are no grounds to take over the assets of the 2nd petitioner college and that due to interference of the 5th respondent and the Government authorities, at the instance of 4th respondent, the college could not be run properly. But the 1st respondent Government without properly considering the nine pages explanation submitted by the petitioners, passed orders under Section 60 of the A.P Education Act, 1982 vide G.O.Rt.No.214, dated 23.09.2016 directing the 2nd respondent to take over the management and assets of the 2nd petitioner college immediately. Aggrieved by the said order, WP.No.32811 of 2016 was filed before this Court. This Court by interim order suspended the impugned G.O.Rt.No.214. Subsequently, when the application for vacating the interim order came up for hearing on 04.01.2017 the respondent sought permission of the Court to withdraw the said GORt to pass orders afresh. This Court while disposing the writ petition granted liberty specifically stating that the respondents shall follow due process before taking any further course of action. The 1st respondent Government without issuing any notice in pursuance of the orders passed in WP.No.32811 of 2016 and without passing 8 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 any further orders in the matter, all of a sudden, on 31.03.2017, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet and the Tahsildar, Narasaraopet, came to the 2nd petitioner college with police force and broke open the locks of the college and threw away all the college records on the street as if it is garbage and took possession of the college. After taking possession of the 2nd petitioner college, the officials have put up a board stating that the action is taken as per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.17, Higher Education (CE) Department, dated 30.03.2017 alleged to have been passed under Section 60 of the A.P Education Act, 1982. The same was not served on the petitioners and a copy is also not made available in the Government website. The petitioners addressed letters to the respondents asking to serve a copy of the impugned G.O. The Government has kept the proposed action to take over management of the 2nd petitioner college in abeyance vide order dated 06.07.2012 until further orders. In such an event, the 2nd respondent has no power to submit once again a proposal to take over the management of the 2nd petitioner college. The impugned GO.Ms.No.17, dated 30.03.2017, issued on the basis of a report alleged to have been submitted by the 2nd respondent on 19.07.2016 subsequent to the show cause notice dated 01.09.2015 and the explanation dated 19.03.2016, which was not even communicated to the petitioners is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice and liable to 9 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 be set aside. As per the provision of Section 60 of the A.P Education Act, the Government is empowered to take over the management of educational institution where the Government is of the opinion that it is either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of the institution. The impugned order does not speak anything about the public interest or for proper management of the college and the same is passed for political reasons at the instance of the 5th respondent. The impugned order was passed without withdrawing the earlier GO.Rt.No.214 dated 23.09.2016 and without following due process of law contrary to the directions of this Court in WP.No.32811 or 2016 dated 04.01.2017. The action of the respondents in taking over the assets and management of the 2nd petitioner college even without serving the impugned order to the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. The 4th respondent instead of furnishing the same, is managing the 2nd petitioner college and running the same. After taking over the management, the 2nd petitioner college was closed down and premises was let out to JNTU for the purpose of running their engineering college. He vehemently submitted that all the action is initiated at the instance of the 5th respondent only in an unfair manner without proper opportunity and without considering the evidence available on record and mainly contended that the RDO has taken over the college to manage the college by the 4th respondent without serving a copy of 10 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 the impugned G.O.Ms.No.17 to the petitioners. The said GO is passed without issuing notice to the petitioners and opportunity to the petitioners to putforth their case in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the orders passed by this Court in WP.No.32811 of 2016. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decisions in Bachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 395]; State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika [AIR 1966 SC 1313]; State of W.B v. M.R.Mondal and another [(2001) 8 SCC 443] to buttress his case that the order passed and not served on the affected party is non-est in the eye of law and no action could be taken without serving a copy on the affected party.
4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 while reiterating the averments of the counter affidavit would contend during the year 1995-1996 due to internal disputes in the management of the college as the Secretary and Correspondent of the 2 nd petitioner college is not managing the college properly and allegations of several commissions, omissions and mismanagement were levelled against him. A three men committee was constituted for conducting enquiry into the allegations and the committee has recommended for taking over the college and a show cause notice was issued to which the petitioners submitted explanation. The explanation is properly considered and issued 11 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 G.O.Rt.No.214, dated 23.09.2016. The Government ordered that the management of the 2nd petitioner college be taken over along with infrastructure, records, computers, buildings etc., with immediate effect in terms of A.P Education Act, 1982. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education was directed to take further action accordingly. The said G.O.Rt has been challenged before this Court by filing WP.No.32811 of 2016 in which this Court passed interim order on 26.09.2016 stating that 'there shall be interim suspension as prayed for, since prima facie the impugned order does not appear to be a reasoned order and since the explanation given by petitioners is not considered, and since it is not stated which rules and procedure in the Act are violated by petitioners.' The said writ petition after filing vacate petition when the matter is taken up for hearing, respondents sought permission to withdraw the said GORt to issue another order giving detailed reasons for taking over the college management under the provisions of Section 60 of the A.P Education Act. Now the Government issued impugned ten pages G.O.Ms.No.17 dated 30.03.2017, by considering the petitioners explanation in the public interest the 2nd petitioner college was taken over by the Government. Since the management failed in securing proper management of the college and for violating Sections 25, 31 of the A.P Education Act and the impugned GO could not be said to be passed without 12 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 any notice or proper opportunity to the petitioners. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the 1st petitioner is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with registration no.171/1984. The 1st petitioner society established the 2nd petitioner college in the year 1984 and the same was admitted to grant-in-aid in the year 1990. It appears that during the years 1995-96 disputes have arisen in the management of the 2nd petitioner college. One Nallapati Siva Rama Chandrasekhar Rao was the secretary and correspondent of the college during that period. Allegations of commissions, omissions and mismanagement were levelled against him resulting in several proceedings before the authorities including High Court of Andhra Pradesh. A Division Bench of the High Court, in its order dated 12.12.1996 passed in WA.No.1112 of 1996 inter alia directed that the charge of Secretary and Correspondentship should be handed-over to the District Collector, Guntur District. Accordingly, the correspondent handed over the management of the 2nd petitioner college to the Collector, Guntur. As per the report of the Collector, only some documents were taken over and further it was informed that some of the documents were not available. For missing the documents, a case of theft of 13 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 material document was alleged and the case was not fully investigated. The alleged theft case was transferred to CBCID. As per the orders of the Division Bench, the District Collector, Guntur, took charge as Secretary and Correspondent and managed the 2nd petitioner college as Secretary and Correspondent from the years 1996 to 2004. Aggrieved by the orders of the Division Bench, dated 12.12.1996 in WA.No.1112 of 1996, the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No.1431/1997. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by its order dated 05.05.2007 has confirmed the orders of the High Court. Further, on the complaint given by one Gogineni Sambaiah against the 5th respondent herein and two others, CBCID registered crime Nos.87/95, 89/95, 88/95 and 9/1997 and the investigating officer - Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Circars zone, Vijayawada, submitted his report to the Court. The investigating Officer stated that the total misappropriation amount detected so far is Rs.3,02,461.80 ps. He found fault with the 5th respondent and stated that the Secretary N.S.Chandrasekhara Rao, Principal, K.V.Kotaiah and N. Venkatarao, Sr.Assistant/Office Superintendent conspired together and collected donations without issuing receipts and diverted the same to the personal accounts and misused the same and suppressed the income and inflated the expenditure through false and forged bills and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 468, 406, 471, 477(A), 420 read with 120-B IPC and 201 IPC. Crime No.89/95 of 14 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 Narasaraopet Town Police Station was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd petitioner college against the 5th respondent herein and six others. The offences alleged are under Sections 307, 504 and 380 IPC. The Investigating Officer in this crime found the 5th respondent along with others guilty for the offences under Sections 380 and 504 IPC. Likewise other crimes were investigated by the investigating officer. The Court further directed the Government to appoint a Special Officer, if not yet appointed forthwith to conduct the affairs of the institution in question and to take action under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 pursuant to the report of Sri Lalit Mathur, IAS, Principal Secretary (Higher Education), dated 07.12.1996. Aggrieved by the orders dated 08.07.1998 in WA.No.1112 of 1996, the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No.4137 of 1999. In view of the status quo orders granted in SLP, the District Collector continued to manage the affairs of the 2nd petitioner college as Secretary and Correspondent for a period of about 10 years. Eventually, the Apex Court dismissed the Civil Appeal on 18.03.2004 and observed inter alia that the competent authority has to conduct elections to the society. Thereafter, N.S. Chandrasekhar Rao, stating that he was the competent authority to conduct elections to the society, conducted elections and claimed that his son Nallapati Ramachandra Prasad was elected as the Secretary and Correspondent and some others as office bearers of the Society. These claims 15 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 triggered further litigation. Correspondentship of N. Ramachandra Prasad was approved by the competent authority on 17.06.2005 subject to final outcome of WP.No.7071 of 2004 filed by K. Chinnaiah claiming himself to be Secretary of the society. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.07.2012 with a direction to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. The college site was acquired from APIIC and obtained donation from MP LADs. The buildings were constructed with MP LADs and UGC Grants. Infrastructure was acquired. However, since 2005 after the college was under
the secretary and correspondentship of N, Ramachandra Prasad, there is a steep deterioration and the standards of the 2nd petitioner college have fallen. The students' strength also depleted year after year. Hence, during the year 2007, there was no sufficient work load for aided staff. Therefore, all the teaching and non teaching except one principal and a non teaching staff were transferred to other needy colleges in the district. The Nagarjuna University to which the 2nd petitioner college is affiliated, after due enquiry, disaffiliated the college. The Regional Joint Director, Guntur, on his surprise visit and enquiry, on the allegations made, by the public, Narasaraopet, against the correspondent of the college regarding mismanagement, degrading and using the assets for getting monetary benefits, has stated in the report that as per the attendance register, there are eleven (11) un-aided teaching staff and two (2) 16 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 aided teaching staff members working in the college; there are no admissions during the academic year 2014-15. The Government was apprised of the affairs of the college and its condition. The Government vide memo No.6156/CE.A2/2014-5, dated 09.10.2014, issued orders appointing a three member committee and directed to submit a detailed report on the functioning of the college duly highlighting the assets and liabilities of the 2nd petitioner college. The findings of the three member committee was submitted to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. Ultimately, the committee recommended to takeover the college from the management so that the infrastructure can be effectively used in the interest of the student community of the area and the three member committee has concluded that the college is not running as per the rules and procedure and the management of the college has failed to protect the interests of the students and public of the area.
6. Based on the report of the three member committee, a show cause notice dated 01.09.1995, was issued to the correspondent of the 2nd petitioner college calling for explanation as to why action should not be taken against the management as per the recommendations of the committee under the provisions of section 60 of the A.P Education Act within 15 days failing which it would be considered that they have no explanation to offer and further action would be taken based on the material available. 17
MGR,J WP_29072_2017 N. Ramachandra Prasad, secretary and correspondent of the 2nd petitioner college through letter dated 14.12.2015 submitted explanation and also requested the Government to furnish certain documents to enable the college management to submit effective explanation to the show cause notice. The explanation further states that the management has put lot of efforts to develop the college; the college has emerged as one of the best colleges in Narasaraopet town.; he blamed the 5th respondent herein, who is one of the members of the governing body of the society for creating disputes among the members of the society; the college was under the management from 1984 to 1995 and at the time of handing over the charge to the Special Officer (District Collector, Guntur District), there were 1300 students and when it was handed over back to the management in the year 2005, the strength of the college has fallen to 860 and therefore, the decrease of the student strength is because of the mismanagement by the Special Officer; the Director of Collegiate Education in his proceedings dated 29.09.2007 has re-deployed all aided teaching and non teaching staff except Principal and one attender and one watchman subject to the condition that as and when college received proper strength and after receiving proposal from the college, all the staff members will be repatriated to the parent college; the management issued paper notification in the year 2010 and attracted students; the secretary and correspondent requested to repatraite the transferred staff and the 18 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 Commissioner of Collegiate Education transferred only one telugu lecturer and one english lecturer without supporting staff like Librarian, physical director and office staff. It is further stated that during the tenure of District Collector, Guntur, he utilized MPLADs and UGC funds. Even the site was purchased with the funds provided by the society and college. Finally he requested the Government to drop further action for taking over assets of the management of 2nd petitioner college and repatriate all the redeployed teaching and non teaching staff to the college and give one chance to the secretary and correspondent of the 2nd petitioner college to revive and bring back the college to its old edifice and name and fame. The Government having considered the explanation and report submitted by the three member committee found that the Secretary and correspondent of the 2nd petitioner college has not putforth any convincing reply or evidence regarding the irregularities pointed out by the three member committee. In addition, the Government observed as follows:
"The District Collector and Special Officer handed over the Management of the college to the society in the year 2005 with the students strength of 860. The students strength drastically reduced and the Commissioenr of Collegiate Education has redeployed the teaching and non teaching staff to other needy colleges in the year 2007 on the basis that the staff were found to be surplus as there were no students in Aided sections and therefore no workload. Further, as per the report of the three member committee, the student strength in the academic year 2014-15 there were NIL admissions (Aided & Unaided Sections) in the college. Further, if the same situation 19 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 continues, there will be only 25 aided students during 2015-16. The Secretary and Correspondent has admitted on 03.05.2016 that during the academic year 2015-16 the student strength is NIL. The affiliation has been cancelled by the Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur.
The College has excellent infrastructure in the form of buildings and the same is not being utilized for the needs of students of the area. The Management has mismanaged and brought the college to the sad state of affairs prevailing now. The Management has not put any efforts to improve the admissions and functioning of the college inspite of the institution under it since 2005, defeating the aim of the Government in investing public money meant for the benefit of student community, thus violated spirit of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982.
The Management has not maintained the accounts, records, admission registers, scholarship accounts etc., thus violated section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982.
The Management failed to produce the records at the time of Inspection of the three men committee, thus violated section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982.
The Correspondent of the college in his explanation dated 19.03.2016 has made a false statement that the buildings in the college were constructed with the society funds, which is not at all correct. He has further stated that the site was purchased with the funds provided by the society as well as the college which is also incorrect as the buildings in the college were constructed by using MPLADs & UGC Funds and the site of the college was purchased by the Principal of the college from using the Special Fee account of the college and the land was registered in the name of the Principal of the college and the District Collector, Guntur (who was then acting as Secretary & Correspondent of the college). The explanation submitted by the Secretary & Correspondent of the college on behalf of the Management, thus violated the spirit behind Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. "
7. The Secretary and Correspondent of the college has been given ample time and opportunity for offering his explanation and he was given every 20 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 document as requested to put-forth his defence. He was allowed sufficient time from 20.07.2015. The explanation submitted by the correspondent dated 14.12.2015 and 19.03.2016 were considered and found not convincing and satisfactory. The Government after considering the material on record issued GORt.No.214, dated 23.09.2106 having found that in the explanation the secretary and correspondent of the 2nd petitioner college has not submitted any material documentary evidence to disbelieve the three member committee report. Hence, the conclusions of the Government could not be found fault with. The Secretary and correspondent of the 2nd petitioner college requested for an opportunity to bring back the college to its original position which the Government viewed as next to impossibility. Baseless and wild allegations were made against the political rivals ignoring the fact that none is claiming the college but requesting since 2010 that the college be taken over by the Government in public interest. As nothing stated in the show cause notice was denied in the explanation given, Government issued the GORt.No.214, dated 23.09.2016 duly instructing the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P, Vijaywada to take further action. The secretary and correspondent of the 2nd petitioner college filed WP.No.32811 of 2016 challenging GORt.No.214, dated 23.09.2016 along with WPMP.No.40604 of 2016 seeking suspension of the impugned GO. The High Court by order dated 26.09.2016, passed interim order as follows:
21
MGR,J WP_29072_2017 "There shall be interim suspension as prayed for, since prima facie the impugned order does not appear to be a reasoned order and since the explanation given by petitioners is not considered, and since it is not stated which rules and procedure in the Act are violated by the petitioners."
8. Subsequently, by order dated 04.01.2017 writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the respondent - Government to withdraw the GO and pass appropriate orders thereon inter alia observing that the respondents shall follow due process before taking any further course of action. The above order is passed as per the submissions of learned Government Pleader for Higher Education stating that the Government may recall this GORt.No.214 dated 23.09.2016 and may consider to issue another order giving elaborate reasons after considering the notices issued and explanations furnished and mentioning the various violations committed by the society/college. The Government issued the impugned GO.Ms.No.17, dated 30.03.2017, to takeover the management and assets of the 2nd petitioner college. Vide proceedings of the Spl.CCE in Rc.No.141/Admn.I.1/2012, dated 31.03.2017, the District Collector and Magistrate, Guntur was requested to take over the management and assets (infrastructure, records, computers buildings) of the 2nd petitioner college under Section 60 of the AP Education Act, 1982 in the public interest, since the college violated Sections 25 and 31 of AP Education Act with immediate effect and report to the Government. Accordingly, the Collector & Magistrate has assumed as Special Officer of the College on 22 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 31.03.2017 and taken over the complete charge of the infrastructure, buildings, records, computers etc. Thereafter the petitioners filed contempt case in CC.No.889 of 2017 for violation of the orders dated 04.10.2017 in WP.No.32811 of 2016 the High Court in its order dated 28.07.2017 closed the contempt case holding that by issuing the impugned GO dated 30.03.2017 it could not be said that the respondents have wilfully or deliberately violated the directions issued warranting the initiation of contempt proceedings.
9. Learned counsel has taken this Court to the relevant paragraphs of the impugned GO issued by the 1st respondent Government and vehemently contended that the orders are passed without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and GORt.No.214 is issued by the 1st respondent to take over the management of the college along with assets exercising powers under the provisions of section 60 of the AP Education Act as this Court interdicted the said order ultimately giving liberty permitted the respondents to withdraw the said GORt to pass fresh orders and subsequently impugned GOMs.No.17 was issued taking over the management and assets of the 2nd petitioner college violating the orders passed by this Court in WP.No.32811 of 2016 dated 04.01.2017. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order is issued and an elaborate order is passed considering the explanation of the petitioners and the three man committee and audit reports wherein the petitioners were not 23 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 cooperated during the enquiry by submitting relevant records for inspection.
Having not participated in the enquiry, the petitioners are estopped from contending that enquiries were conducted behind the back of the petitioners and submitted report and no opportunity was given to the petitioners to go through the records. In fact they availed opportunity of perusing the entire records and submitted explanation. The same was considered in its proper perspective. Taking a plea that they were not given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry cannot be countenanced. On consideration of the said submissions and perusal of the record and enquiry reports, this Court came to the conclusion that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.17 dated 30.02.2017 is passed in the public interest to take over the management and assets of the 2nd petitioner college to put it for best use for public purpose. The Government has taken a decision to run the 2nd petitioner college as a Government college for children belonging to down trodden sections by providing hostel accommodation. Due to status quo granted by this Court, the same could not be materialized. The 2nd petitioner college is established and buildings were constructed and managed with the grant in aid, UGC and constructing MP LADS and UGC funds. The Secretary and Correspondent of the 2nd petitioner college started misusing the funds of the college for personal purpose and started running the unaided college in the said premises. When the contempt case in CC.No.889 of 2017 was filed complaining violation of the order passed 24 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 in WP.No.32811 of 2016, wherein the respondents filed counter enclosing impugned GOMs.No.17, dated 30.03.2017. The contempt case was closed by orders dated 28.07.2017 wherein it was observed as follows:
"...Government passed orders in G.O.Ms.17 dated 30.3.2017 to take over the management and assets of NBT & NVC College, Narasaraopeta, Guntur District. This Contempt case is filed alleging violation of the directions issued by the Court.
According to learned counsel for petitioners since this Court directed to follow the due process before taking further course of action, on 30.03.2017 earlier orders were withdraw and fresh orders in GOMs.No.214 dated 23.09.2016 were passed without affording any notice or opportunity to the petitioners and therefore the directions of this Court are violated.
A bare reading of the order passed by this Court, it does not appear that there was such a direction issued and therefore it cannot be said that by passing orders on 30.03.2017 respondents have wilfully or deliberately violated the directions issued warranting initiation of contempt proceedings."
10. This Court on further considering the three man committee report and audit reports and explanation submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice found that the Secretary and Correspondent committed certain irregularities in managing the affairs of the 2nd petitioner college and due to improper management of the college and lack of teaching and non teaching staff, the students' strength of the college dwindled. At last no students are available in the college. It shows the purpose for which the college was established i.e., for imparting education to the down trodden people of the 25 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 area is not achieved. The public interest demands that the 2nd petitioner college management and assets needs to be taken over by the Government for better administration of the college. Accordingly, the 1st respondent exercised its power under Section 60 of the AP Education Act, 1982. In view of the prolonged litigation and opportunities given to the petitioners, the allegation that the impugned order is not properly served on the petitioners could not be countenanced. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners in not properly serving the impugned order and the same could not be said to be a breach of provisions of Section 60 of the AP Education Acts which warrants interference of this Court. The submission of the petitioners' counsel that the impugned order is non-est in the eye of law, as it is not served on the petitioners holds no water, in the public interest more than private/individual interest of the petitioner. In view of the larger public interest, this Court declined to interfere. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court found that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO 03.04.2023 Vjl 26 MGR,J WP_29072_2017 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO WRIT PETITION No.29072 of 2017 03.04.2023 Vjl