Madras High Court
Arumugam Pillai Seethai Ammal College, ... vs The Registrar Madurai Kamaraj ... on 10 October, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1996MAD309, (1996)IMLJ17, AIR 1996 MADRAS 309, (1996) WRITLR 143, (1996) 1 MAD LJ 17, (1996) 1 MAD LW 260
ORDER
1. This writ petition is by the petitioner college seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings relating to the order passed in No. CDC/CF/94 dated 21-12-1994 and also to quash the consequential order dated 1-3-1995 on the file of the respondent appointing a Commission and directing enquiry as against the petitioner college.
2. The case of the petitioner, as can be gathered from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is as follows:--
The petitioner college is a private aided institution which is recognised and affiliated to Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai. The said college was started in the 1965, and is a reputed institution situate in a rural area, doing yeoman service to the Public of Tirupathur and its surrounding areas. It is producing number of rank holders every year and is maintaining good discipline among the students in all respects. The results of the University examinations of the institution were between 75% to 100% in most of the courses.
3. The respondent by his letter dated 29-12-1994 informed the petitioner that a Commission had been constituted to visit the petitioner college to go into the details related to the alleged collection of capitation fees for admission into various courses or otherwise, and that the Commission would visit the petitioner college shortly. The respondent sent one more letter dated 1-3-1995 informing that the Commission so appointed consister of (i) Prof. B. Parthasarathy, Syndicate' Member, (ii) Prof. A. Sankaranarayanan, Former Syndicate member and (iii) Prof. M. K. Chandrasekar, Syndicate member, and that they would be visiting the college at 10.00 a.m. on 14-3-1995 to enquire into the irregularities. The petitioner sent representation dated 7-3-1995 objecting for the Commission visiting and inspecting the college on 14-3-1995 for various reasons stated in the said representation, in spite of this the petitioner was informed that the said Commission would be visiting the college on 14-3-1995 to conduct enquiry.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 21-12-1994 and consequential order dated 1-3-1995 mentioned above contending that,
(a) The impugned orders of the respondent appointing a Commission and constituting a Committee were illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction;
(b) The petitioner college did not collect any capitation fee; by objecting or the Commission to inspect the college and conducting enquiry, should not be understood that the petitioner had committed any offence and particularly collection of capitation fees; the procedure adopted by the respondent to gc into the details of allegation against the petitioner college was not proper that too without giving opportunity to it to give its explanation.
(c) The Madurai Kamaraj University is governed by Madurai Kamaraj University Act (Act 33 of 1965), (for short, the Act), section 4 of the Act refers about the power of the University, Section 8 state about the officers of the University, and Section 14 speaks, about the authorities of the University, The Act provides for powers and duties of the officers and the authorities of the University. None of the provisions cast any duty to confer any power on the respondent or on its authorities. Hence the order appointing any commission in this regard is illegal and invalid.
(d) Although section 45 of the Act refers to Constitution of Committee by the authorities of the University, but when the authorities themselves do not have any power to conduct enquiry in regard to the alleged collection and capitation fee, they do not have power to constitute the committee.
(e) The Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fct:) Act, 1992 (for short, Capitation Fee Act), being a special enactment to prohibit collection of capitation fee for admission to the educational institutions in the State, provides for the matters relating thereto, and it is a self-contained Code even providing for taxing action by the Government and punishing the offenders; under the Act the power is given only to the Government to initiate any proceedings and not to the University; more-of or Section 12 of the Capitation Fee Act has ovcrriding effect, if there is any inconsistency in any other law for the time being in force in regard to prohibition of collection of capitation fees. Hence the respondent has no jurisdiction to appoint a Commission.
(f) The petitioner also objected tor the Constitution of the Committee stating that a complaint was said to have been given by one G. John Arputhanathan, a staff member of the petitioner college who is facing a serious disciplinary action; Thiru A. Sankaranara-yanan, a member of the commission so constituted is in no way connected with the University as on date. In the circumstances the enquiry by such commission would affect the rights of the petitioner, and the enquirty will not be impartial one; and
(g) The petitioner is willing to submit for enquiry by the Government but the respondent has purposely constituted a commission just to malign the reputation of the petitioner college at the instigation of certain individuals. Hence, the orders appointing the Commission and directing the Commission to conduct enquiry are to be quashed.
5. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the writ petition is neither maintainable in law nor on facts; the University has constituted a committee to go into the question of collection of capitation fee by the petitioner college; the said committee was appointed by the Syndicate in the exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Statute of the University. Further 'as per the provision of the Act the University has got an overall power of superintendence over the affairs of its affiliated colleges. Hence the petitioner cannot question the validity of the same. It is also denied that the order directing inspection of the college is without jurisdiction. It is stated that the meaning of the word affiliation cannot be restricted only with regard to the syllabus, course of study and conferment of degree.
6. As per the Statute of the University, affiliation includes enforcement of academic discipline and general supervision by the University regarding the procedure of admission after receiving the prescribed fees etc. Hence any college in violation collects fees that is not legally correct, the University has right to enforce discipline on the erring college. It is denied that the petitioner did not collect capitation fee. The University received specific complaint about the collection of capitation fees. When the petitioner has no serious objection about the appointment of the committee and the objection is only to the procedure adopted by the University will go to show that no harm will be caused if the committee is constituted as a fact finding mission. Only after establishing the allegation of collection of capitation fee an opportunity will be given to the petitioner to explain their stand.
7. The University in general exercise of supervision over the affairs of the affiliated college has got every, power to infuse discipline in the running of the affiliated college. It is true that the Capitaltion Fee Act is enacted, but it is not correct to state that only the State Government can initiate any proceedings and that the University has got nothing to do with it. On the other hand the power of the University is already existing one and it runs concurrently with the powers of the Capitation Fee Act. Further the Capitation Fee Act does not specifically oust the jurisdiction of the University authorities in the matter. Under the circumstances the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Smt. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner in her arguments reiterated the grounds raised in the writ petition, and submitted that when both the orders impugned in the writ petition were passed without authority of law and jurisdiction, the relief sought, for by the petitioner may be granted by allowing the writ petition.
9. Shri G. Bhaskaran, the learned counsel representing the respondent University, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed, argued justifying the action taken by the respondent in issuing the impugned orders. He submitted that the syndicate of the University constituted the commission as the University has overall and general power of supervision over the affairs of the affiliated colleges, with a view to maintain discipline in the affiliated college including the questions relating to admissions and collection of fees contrary to what is prescribed. He also submitted that at the time of giving affiliation to a college, it is open to the University to impose any condition.
10. At this stage, when specifically asked whether any specific condition was imposed on the petitioner college while granting affiliation relating to the collection of capitation fees, the learned counsel submitted that no such condition was imposed as one of the conditions for grant of affiliation.
11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the pleadings, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the respondent had jurisdiction to appoint and constitute a commission to enquire into the allegations of collection of capitation fee by the petitioner college.
12. The College was started in the year 1965; the respondent has granted affiliation to the petitioner college without imposing any condition as regards the prohibition of collection of capitation fees; none of the provisions of the Act specifically deal with either collection or prohibition of capitation fee. Neither powers are conferred nor duties are cast either on the officers or the authorities of the University relating to prohibition and collection of capitation fee.
13. The Capitation Fee Act is a special enactment dealing with the subject of prohibition of collection of capitation fee and related matters directly, which appears to be a self contained Act, having an overriding effect provided in Section 12 of the Act, and also making provisions for taking action in regard to violations of the provisions of the Act against the offenders. Hence the question that has arisen for consideration in this case is to be answered in the light of what is stated above. I consider it unnecessary to go into the averments made in the writ petition objecting to the persons constituting the commission and bias against the petitioner, as the question to be decided now is relating to the jurisdiction of the respondent to appoint a commission.
14. The objects and powers of the University are enumerated in Section 4 of the Act. As can be seen from Section 4 of the Act, the topic of either collection or prohibition of capitation fee is not at all there. Section 4(20) speaks of general power of the University to do all such other acts and things as may be necessary or desirable to further the objects of the University, and this general power has to be essentially understood in relation to the objects of the University enumerated. Similarly as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and not denied by the learned counsel for the respondent, none of the authorities of the University is conferred with the power or obliged to perform any duty in relation to the prohibitioin of capitation fee.
15. In view of the stand of the respondent that the syndicate in the power and authority has appointed the commission, Section 20 of the Act is to be seen under which the powers of the syndicate are listed. Section 20(16) states that the syndicate shall have the power in the matter of charging and collection of such fees as may be prescribed. The question in the case on hand is not relating to the collection of fees, i.e., either admission fee or tuicion fee or other fees prescribed by the University in an affiliated college. The allegation is one of collection of capitation fees unauthorisedly and against law. Section 20 of the Act has not conferred any power of the syndicate on the aspect of prohibition of collection of capitation fees.
16. It is not disputed that either the University or the Syndicate did not impose any specific condition in regard to prohibition of capitation fees, as a condition of affiliation to the petitioner college at the time when it WHS granted. Added to this when Section 12 of the Capitation Fees Act states it overrides other laws, in case of inconsistency that included the University Act. The said Section 12 reads:
'"Act to override other laws. -- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force."
Since there is no provision in the University Act dealing with the aspect of either collection or prohibition of capitation fees, the question of inconsistency between that Act and the Cupitation Fees Act does not arise.
17. As already noticed above,the general power of supervision of the University should be related to the powers and object of the University as per Section 4 of the Act and not beyond that. The subject of either collection or prohibition of capitation fees falls outside the provisions of the Act and the special enactment viz., the Capitation Fees Act specifically dealing with the subject and related matters has come into existence providing for all aspects. In other words, it is a self-contained Code relating to the subject including Section 12 stating that it overrides other laws in case of any inconsistency. The Capitation Fee Act, which is an Act to prohibit the collection of capitation fee for admission to educational institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu and to provide for matters relating thereto, was enacted taking note of the practice of collecting capitation fee for admitting students into the educational institutions was wide-spread in the State, and that such practice was undesirable leading to large scale commercialisation of education and that has not been conducive to the maintenance of educational standards, and as such it was considered necessary to effectively curb this undesirable practice in public interest by prohibiting collection of capitation fee, and to provide for matters relating thereto.
18. Section 3 of the said Act deals with the prohibition and collection of capitation fee notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or other authority. Section 4 regulates the fees to be collected. Section 5 gives power to the Government to regulate the maintenance of accounts by the educational institutions as may be prescribed. Section 7 provides for penalties for contraventions of the provisions of the Act or the rules stating that whoever contravenes the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and with fine which may extend to 5000 rupees, provided the Court for special reasons to be mentioned in the Judgment may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than three years The said Section also provides for refund of any amount collected to the person concerned.
19. Section 9 confers power on any Officer authorised by the Government in this behalf to enter such educational institution or any premises thereof during normal working hours of any educational institution, if he has reason to believe that there is or has been any contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder and search and inspect any records, accounts, registers or other documents belonging to such educational institution or of the management. The. Section also authorises seizure of records, accounts, registers or other documents for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is or has been any such contravention. Section 9(3) states that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to search and seizure shall apply so far as may to be to search and seizure under sub-section (1) of Section 9. Section 11 prohibits taking cognizance of any offence under the Act except with the sanction of the Government or such Officer as the Government may authorise in this behalf.
20. Having regard to the above provisions contained in the Capitation Fees Act, it is absolutely clear that action can be taken against the institutions or the concerned individuals for violation or contraventions of the provisions of the Act and they can be punished by the authorities in the manner provided for. Thus looking to the object and the scheme of the Capitation Fee Act, making provisions to cover all aspects, it is clear that the said Act is a self-contained Act. Not only this, Section 12 specifically states that the said Act overrides other laws so fards they are inconsistent, and Section 11 prohibits even taking cognizance of any offence by any Court except with the previous sanction of the State Government or such Officer as the Government may authorise in that behalf. Thus it is plain that the respondent University had nojurisdiction and authority either under the University Act governing it or other laws to appoint a Commission to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner college relating to collection of caitation fees. Hence the point is answered in the negative against the respondent.
21. In the result, for the reasons stated, the writ petition is entitled to succeed. Hence I proceed to pass the following order :-
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
22. Petition allowed.