Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic ... vs University Grants Commission on 12 April, 2017
WP-8652-2015
(MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA A BODY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF MAHARISHI MA Vs UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION)
12-04-2017
Shri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel with Shri Avinash
Zargar Advocate, for the petitioner (in both the cases).
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel with Ms. Nirmala
Nayak and Shri Sandeep Shukla, Advocate for the
respondent (in both the cases).
Heard on I.A. No. 1864/2017 filed by the respondent UGC for taking documents on record and I.A. No. 1865/2017 filed by the respondent UGC praying for extension of time to file a compliance report in respect of the order passed in W.P No 18225/2016 wherein this Court had directed the respondent/UGC to consider and decide the applications filed by the petitioner seeking permission to start the Distant Education courses.
I.A. No. 4051/2017 has been filed by the applicant in the contempt petition seeking urgent hearing of the matter. W.P No. 8652/2015 has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent UGC whereby the classification and categorization of the petitioner University as a State University has been changed and the petitioner has now been categorized by the impugned order as a private University.
This Court by way of an interim order passed in W.P. No 8652/2015 had ordered the parties to maintain status-quo. The aforesaid order had been passed on the contention that the petitioner University as on the date of passing of the order was categorized as a State University but had thereafter been re-categorized as a private University. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order, an application had been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the UGC to comply with the order of statu-quo and re-categorize the petitioner/University as a State University. On the basis of the application filed by the petitioner/ University, this Court had directed the UGC to comply with the same and till the pendency of the petition, permit the petitioner to be categorized as a State University.
The respondent UGC being aggrieved by the aforesaid interim direction of this Court had approached the Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeals No. 1395-1396/2017. The aforesaid SLPs has been allowed by the Supreme Court by order dated 3.2.2017 and it has been ordered that as the status of the petitioner/ University as on date of filing of the petition was that of a private University, status-quo in that regard shall be maintained which would continue till the decision of the present writ petition filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had previously filed applications seeking permission to run on campus and off campus courses as well as to establish Open Distant Education Centres within the State of M.P but as the said applications were not been processed and decided by the UGC, the petitioner had filed W.P. No. 18225/2016 before this Court seeking a direction in that regard which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondent/UGC to consider and decide the petitioner's applications seeking recognition and permission to run such centres by order 8.11.2016 inspite of which as the UGC has not processed the applications, therefore the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition in which the respondent/UGC has appeared and stated that they have not passed any formal order on the application of the petitioner on account of the pendency of W.P. No. 8652/2015 as they are apprehending that any order passed by them may result in violating the interim order of status quo passed by this Court.
While the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that the respondent UGC inspite of taking a decision in principal to allow the applications filed by the petitioner seeking permission to run on campus and off campus courses, has not issued a formal order in that regard inspite of the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No. 18225/2016, the respondent/UGC has filed I.A. No. 1865/2017 and contended that they are in the process of taking a decision in the matter but apprehend that any decision taken by them may amount to violation of the interim order passed in the present petition ie. W.P. No. 8652/2015 and the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1395-1396/2017 wherein status quo in respect of the status of the petitioner University has been directed to be maintained. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by misinterpreting the interim order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8652/2015 and the Supreme Court, the respondent UGC are not even considering the petitionerâs application for granting permission to run on campus and off campus courses within the State of M.P. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the other applications filed by the petitioner/University for permitting them to run Open Distant Education Centers within the State of M.P. have also not been considered and decided by the UGC on account of pendency of the present petition and the status-quo order passed herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such circumstances because of the inaction on the part of the respondent UGC, the petitioner University is on the verge of closure as they are not able to admit students or take any further steps in the matter for the on-going academic session inspite of the fact that the petitioner University is a Unique University and the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalya V. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2013)15 SCC 677 has observed that all authorities should make efforts to ensure that all assistance and encouragement is given to the petitioner/University. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent UGC submits that though in principal, the petitioner's application has been processed and a decision to allow the same has been taken but no formal order in that regard has been passed on account of the order of status quo existing in the present petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the rival submissions, it is observed that in the present petition, W.P. No. 8652/2015, the petitioner/University have assailed the validity of the order passed by the UGC deleting its name from the list of State Universities and classifying it as a Private University. On the other hand the issue involved in W.P. No. 18225/2016 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 8.11.2016 relates to the consideration of the petitionerâs application for running on campus and off campus courses as well as to run Open Distant Education Centres and therefore, the issue involved in both the petitions are different. We are also of the considered opinion that the apprehension expressed by the UGC at this stage in view of the order of status quo passed by this Court they are not sure as to whether they have to consider the applications filed by the petitioner/ University by treating it to be a State University or a private University is to some extent justified.
In view of the aforesaid facts, we think it appropriate to clarify that in view of the order of status quo passed by this Court and the Supreme Court, the status of the petitioner University as a Private University has to be maintained as on date, subject to the final decision of the W.P. No. 8652/2015 and the applications filed by the petitioner University seeking permission to run on campus and off campus courses or Open Distant Education Centres have to be considered by the UGC keeping that status in mind.
In other words, it is clarified that at this stage any decision taken by the respondent UGC pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P No. 8652/2015 on the applications filed by the petitioner/University seeking permission to run on campus and off campus courses as well as to establish Open Distant Education Centres within the State of M.P. by maintaining its classification as a Private University would not be in violation or in derogation nor would amount to contempt of the order directing maintenance of status quo passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8652/2015 as well as the Supreme Court. It goes without saying that this classification of the petitioner University would be subject to the final decision taken by this Court in W.P. No. 8652/2015.
It is however, pertinent to note that the issue of establishment of the petitioner University had travelled to the Supreme Court and was ultimately decided in the case of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalya V. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2013)15 SCC 677 and while doing so the Supreme Court in paragraph 113 has made following observations :-
â One other relevant factor which is also to be kept in mind is the establishment of the appellant University at the repeated persuasion of Maharshi Mahesh Yogi was definitely to provide full-fledged education on the Vedas and the various intricate subjects, which are found in Vedas, as well as its practices, Ithihas, Puranas etc. In fact, there can be no two opinion that such an institution with such a laudable objective for imparting education in different fields based on the teachings in Vedas, was very rare and it is said that the appellant University is stated to be an unique University created and established by the founders of the said institution headed by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi. Therefore, when such a premium University, which is stated to be only one of its kind in the whole of the Country was successfully established based on the 1995 Act, in our considered opinion, such a well established institution should be allowed to survive by enabling the said University to conduct courses as has been planned by it and introduced under Ordinance 15 and thereby, make the appellant University a viable one. Such an approach alone, in our considered view, ensure the successful existence and continued running of the University in the further years and thereby, benefit very many aspirants from among the younger generation who wish to learn more and more about very many subjects by understanding such subjects based on the teachings that are found and established in Vedic learnings, its practices, Ithihas and Puranas etc. Therefore, on this ground as well, in our considered opinion, any attempt made from any quarters, which would disrupt the running of the appellant University, will only amount to interfering with its various Constitutional rights and fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore, when such interference is brought to the notice of this Court, the Court has to necessarily come to the rescue of the appellant University by saving it from any such onslaught being made on its continued existence. We, therefore, find force in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant while attacking the amended Section 4(1) and its proviso, by which the appellant University was deprived of its valuable right to hold very many programmes in the conduct of the course enumerated in its Ordinance 15, which consequently resulted in violation of its Constitutional, as well as Fundamental Rights in the running of its educational institutions.â In the view of the facts and circumstances, as enumerated above, and the observations and directions of the Supreme Court made in para 113 in the case of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalya (Supra), I.A. Nos. 1864/2017, 1865/2017 and I.A. No.4051/2017 filed in Contempt Petition No. 2259/2016 are disposed of with a direction to the respondent UGC to take a decision on the applications filed by the petitioner or on the applications that may be filed by the petitioner seeking to run on campus and off campus courses and Open Distant Education Centres within the State of M.P. in accordance with law and the above quoted decision of the Supreme Court as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks.
At this stage, we think it appropriate to clarify that the issue in respect of the status of the petitioner as a Private University or as a State University would be subject to the final decision taken by this Court in WP No. 8652/2015 but this fact shall and will not come in the way of the UGC in complying with the directions issued by this Court today whereby we have directed the respondent UGC to consider and decide the applications filed by the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 18225/2016 while treating the petitioner University as a private University in terms of the interim order of status quo passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8652/2015 and the Supreme Court.
With the observations/directions, the aforesaid IAs are disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAVI SHANKAR JHA) (ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
a