Maharashtra Technical Education ... vs The Chairman, All India Council For ... on 21 February, 2024

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Maharashtra Technical Education ... vs The Chairman, All India Council For ... on 21 February, 2024

Bench: A. S. Chandurkar

2024:BHC-AS:8490-DB
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.14369 OF 2022

1. Administrative Council
Walchand College of Engineering
Having its office at A/P Vishrambag
Sangli, 416 415 through its Member
Mr. Ravindra Purohit
Having address at Hincon House, LBS Marg
Vikhroli (West) Mumbai - 400 083.

2. Walchand College of Engineering,
Sangli through its In-charge Director
Dr. P. G. Sonavane, having office at
Walchand College of Engineering
Sangli, A/P Vishrambag Sangli - 416 415.

3. Seth Walchand Hirachand Memorial Trust
A public charitable trust registered under the
provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts
Act, 1950 and having its office at Hincon
House, LBS Marg, Vikhroli,
Mumbai - 400 083.

4. Mr. Chakor N. Gandhi
Age: 63 Occupation: Business
of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant having his
Office at Pragandh Bungalow, 1205/3/3,
Jangli Maharaj Road, Opp. Ashok Lodge,
Pune - 411 004. ... Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Maharashtra
Through the Ministry of Higher and
Technical Education having its office at

1 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:57 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

4th floor, Mantralaya, Hutatma Chowk
Madam Cama Road, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.

2. Directorate of Technical Education
Maharashtra State, Mumbai,
Mahapalika Marg, Opposite Metro Cinema,
Mumbai - 400 001.

3. Joint Director, Technical Education
Regional Office, 412-E, Shivaji Nagar,
Bahirat Patil Chowk, Pune - 411 016.

4. Maharashtra Technical Education Society
A society cum trust registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1960 having
its office at F. P. No.23, Off. Karve Road,
Pune - 411 004.

5. The Registrar, Shivaji University,
A University incorporated under the
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994,
Vidyanagar Kolhapur - 416 004.

7. The Chairman,
All India Council for Technical Education
A statutory body of the Government of India
Parliament Act (52) 1987 having its office
At 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath,
New Delhi - 110 002.

8. Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh,
Age- not known, Occupation: not known,
Having his office at Final Plot No. 23, Off
Karve Road, Erandwane, Pune - 411 004
And also at A/p, Kadegaon, Taluka Palus,
District Sangli, Maharashtra - 415304. ...Respondents

2 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:57 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.12830 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.14369 OF 2022

Governing Body
Maharashtra Technical Education Society's
Walchand College of Engineering,
Vishrambag, Sangli, Dist. Sangli
Through its authorized officer,
Shri. Jaydeep Hanmant Ghorpade ...Intervenor/Applicant

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :-

2. Walchand College of Engineering,
Sangli through its In-charge Director
Dr. P. G. Sonavane, having office at
Walchand College of Engineering
Sangli, A/P Vishrambag Sangli - 416 415.

4. Mr. Chakor N. Gandhi
Age: 63 Occupation: Business
of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant having its
Office at Pragandh Bungalow, 1205/3/3,

3 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Jangli Maharaj Road, Opp. Ashok Lodge,
Pune - 411 004. ... Petitioners
Versus

1. State of Maharashtra
Through the Ministry of Higher and
Technical Education, having its office at
4th floor, Mantralaya, Hutatma Chowk
Madam Cama Road, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.

2. Directorate of Technical Education
Maharashtra State, Mumbai,
Mahapalika Marg, Opposite Metro Cinema,
Mumbai - 400 001.

3. Joint Director, Technical Education
Regional Office, 412-E, Shivaji Nagar,
Bahirat Patil Chowk, Pune - 411 016.

4. Maharashtra Technical Education Society
A society cum trust registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1960 having
its office at F. P. No.23, Off. Karve Road,
Pune - 411 004.

5. The Registrar, Shivaji University,
A University incorporated under the
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994,
Vidyanagar Kolhapur - 416 004.

8. Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh,
Age- not known, Occupation: not known,

4 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Having his office at Final Plot No. 23, Off
Karve Road, Erandwane, Pune - 411 004
And also at A/p, Kadegaon, Taluka Palus,
District Sangli, Maharashtra - 415304. ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.13025 OF 2016
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1057 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.13025 OF 2016

Maharashtra Technical Education Society
A society registered under the
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950
Through its Secretary,
Prof. Shriram Gopal Kanitkar
Age 65, Occ. Retired,
Office Address F. P. No.23,
Off. Karve Road, Pune - 411 004. ...Petitioner

Versus

1. The Chairman,
All India Council for Technical Education
A statutory body of the Government of India
Parliament Act (52) 1987 having its office
At 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath,
New Delhi - 110 002.

2. The Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education,
The State of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.

3. The Director
Directorate of Technical Education
3, Mahapalika Marg,
Mumbai.

5 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

4. The Registrar
Shivaji University, Vidyanagar,
Dist. Kolhapur,
5. The Chairman
University Grant Commission,
Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110002.

6. Administrative Council
Walchand College of Engineering
Having its office at A/P Vishrambag
Sangli, 416 415 through its Member
Mr. Ravindra Purohit
Having address at Hincon House, LBS Marg
Vikhroli (West) Mumbai - 400 083.

7. Walchand College of Engineering,
Having its office at A/P Vishrambag
Sangli - 416 415
Through Administrative Council,
Member Mr.Ravindra Purohit.

8. Mr.Ravindra Purohit
Member Administrative Council
Having office at
Hincon House, LBS Marg,
Vikhroli (West) Mumbai - 400 083.

9. Maharashtra Technical Education Society
A Charitable Society, registered under the
Societies Act, 1869 having registration no
F-122, through its Chairman Shri Vijay B.
Pusalkar having office at F. P. No.23,
Off. Karve Road, Pune - 411 004. ...Respondents
_________

Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Shailesh Naidu, Ms.
Rashmi Raghavan, Mr. Prasad Shenoy, Ms. Viloma Shah and Mr.

6 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Harshad Vyas, Mr.Ativ Patel, Mr. Darshit Jain & Mr.Pradeep Kumar i/by
AVP Partners for Petitioners in WP/14369/22 and Respondent No.6 in
WP/13025/16.
Mr. Ram Apte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Padmanabh D. Pise a/w Ms.
Sejal A. Hariyan i/by P. Padmanabh & Associates for the Petitioner in
WP/13025/16 & Applicant in IA/1057/2020 in WP/13025 of 2016 &
for Respondent No.4 in WP/14369/22.
Mr. S. S. Patwardhan a/w Mr. Y. G. Thorat & Mr. H. M. Khupsare i/by
Mr. Ashok Tajane for Applicant in IA(St)/12830/2023 in WP/14639/22.
Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. G.P. a/
w Mr. N. K. Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent (State).
Ms. Anjali Helekar for Respondent - AICTE.
Mr. Rajdeep Khadapkar for Respondent No.5.
Mr. Rui Rodriques a/w Mr. Jainendra Sheth for Respondent No.7 in WP/
14369/22 and Respondent No.5 in WP/13025/16 (for UGC).
Mr. Sadashiv Deshmukh for Respondent No.8 in WP/14369/22.
__________

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR,
JITENDRA JAIN, J.J.

Date on which the arguments concluded : 12th FEBRUARY 2024.

Date on which the Judgment is pronounced : 21st FEBRUARY 2024.

Judgment:- (Per Jitendra Jain, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the

parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2. This is one of those matters where the parties are wrestling to

continue/regain control of a body that is in-charge of control and

management of the one of the finest engineering college of the State.

7 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

3. In Writ Petition No.14369 of 2022, the Petitioners are

challenging the communication dated 4th October 2022 issued by

Respondent No.1-State to Respondent No.4-Society and communication

dated 4th November 2022 issued by Respondent No.5-University to

Respondent no.4-Society, whereby Respondent Nos.1 and 5 have

nominated their representative on the governing body constituted by

Respondent No.4 to control and manage the Petitioner No.2-College.

The Petitioners have further sought a relief in the nature of declaration

that they be declared as being in control and management of affairs of

the Petitioner No.2-College.

4. Narrative of events :-

(i) In the year 1947, Respondent No.4-Society started an Engineering

College at Sangli, Maharashtra which was named as 'New

Engineering College.' As the College started growing, it could not

match the requirement of finance. The financial condition of the

college was precarious and therefore Respondent No.4-Society

requested Respondent No.1-State and the Central Government to

support them by giving financial assistance.

(ii) Respondent No.4-Society gave two alternatives to Respondent

No.1-State, namely either to give financial grant so that

Respondent No.4 can pay off the liabilities of the College or

Respondent No.1-State should take over the management and

8 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

control and assets and liabilities of the College.

(iii) On the request made by the Respondent No.1-State and the

Central Government, Petitioner No.3-Trust agreed to give financial

assistance to stabilize the financial condition of the college with

various conditions inter alia that the Petitioner No.3-Trust would

be given due representation on the college Governing Board and

the name of the college would be changed to "Walchand Hirachand

College of Engineering." After due consultation among Petitioner

No.3-Trust, Respondent No.1-State, Respondent No.4-Society and

the Central Government, Petitioner No.3 donated the amount

agreed upon and an Ad hoc Committee was appointed by the

Government which took charge of the affairs of the college, the

said Ad hoc Committee was constituted by the Government in

which Petitioner No.3-Trust had one representative on the said

committee.

(iv) On 24th June 1955, the Ad hoc Committee was replaced by

Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council and it was agreed more

particularly by Petitioner No.3, Respondent No.4 and Respondent

No.1 that Petitioner No.1 would have its own Rules and

Regulations to manage and control the affairs of the College. It was

also agreed that the management and control of the college would

be exercised by Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council which body

9 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

would be distinct and separate from Respondent No.4-Society. The

Rules and Regulations were formed and accepted by all the

stakeholders. As per the said Rules and Regulations, the Petitioner

No.1-Administrative Council would have 11 members consisting of

representatives from Petitioner No.3-Trust and Respondent Nos.1,

3, 4, 5,6 etc. The idea appeared to be to disassociate the college

from Respondent No.4-Society and the college be professionally

run by an independent body.

(v) On 17th June 1957, a Property Demarcation Committee gave its

report with recommendations for division of assets and liabilities of

the Respondent No.4 between the Petitioner No.2-College to be run

by Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council and Respondent No.4.

The recommendations included taking over of the properties,

assets and liabilities of the college by Petitioner No.1 and

Respondent No.4-Society to divest itself of all powers of disposal

etc. The said Committee's recommendation was accepted by

Respondent No.4-Society and Petitioner No.3-Trust by passing

appropriate resolutions in this regard in their respective body

meetings and communicating the same to each other. On 3 rd

October 1961, in a meeting of Respondent No.4-Society an

irrevocable resolution was passed that Respondent No.4-Society

would not create any encumbrances on the assets of Petitioner

10 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

No.2-College without prior approval of Petitioner No.1-Council. In

the said meeting it was also agreed that 3 members out 4

representing Respondent No.4-Society would be approved by the

Petitioner No.3-Trust.

(vi) Pursuant to the above, on 26th May 1964 a resolution was passed

by Respondent No.4-Society handing over land and building to

Petitioner No.1.

(vii) In 2007, an autonomous status was granted to the College by

Respondent No.7-University Grant Commission (UGC) and

Respondent No.5-University.

(viii)As per the guidelines issued by Respondent No.7-UGC,

autonomous college should be managed by a Governing Body and

the composition of the said Body was mentioned in these

guidelines.

(ix) on 17th November 2010, Respondent No.4 at its Annual General

Meeting passed a resolution repealing the Autonomous Council

Rules, framed in 1956, by seeking to introduce amendments

without any consent or approval from Petitioners. Thereafter, the

Respondent No.8 addressed various letters to members of statutory

bodies on Petitioner No.1 body calling upon them to nominate

their representatives on the board of governors formed by

Respondent No.4. Pursuant thereto, on 1st March 2011,

11 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Respondent No.6-AICTE nominated its two members on the Board

of Governors.

(x) The aforesaid nomination by Respondent No.6-AICTE was

withdrawn on 30th March 2011 on realising that they have

nominated their members on a wrong board. This withdrawal was

challenged before Delhi High Court by Respondent No.4 but the

said petition was later withdrawn with liberty.

(xi) On 13th August 2013, in response to an RTI query, Respondent

No.1-State informed the Applicant of RTI that Petitioner No.1 is in

compliance with the guidelines issued by Respondent No.6-AICTE

and Respondent No.7-UGC. The RTI reply also narrates the history

and the exchange of correspondence since 1956 and the formation

of Petitioner No.1 on which the representatives of various statutory

bodies are nominated.

(xii) In 2016, Respondent No.4 filed a Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016

seeking directions against Respondent No.1-State, Respondent

No.2-Directorate of Technical Education, Respondent No.5-

University, Respondent No.6-AICTE and Respondent No.7-UGC for

appropriate directions to appoint their representatives on the

Board of Governors of Respondent No.4-Trust and not to send their

representatives on the body of Petitioner No.1-Administrative

Council. No interim relief has been granted in the said Writ

12 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Petition. The Petitioner No.1 herein Administrative Council has

made an application for intervention in the said Writ Petition.

(xiii) On 2nd July 2016, a Committee formed by Respondent No.1-State

with regard to the management of Petitioner No.2-College

submitted its report. In the said report, the Committee observed

that Petitioner No.1 was established for management of Petitioner

No.2-College as per the directions of Respondent No.1-State and

Central Government. The said Committee confirmed that Petitioner

No.1 has rights in the management of Petitioner No.2 and after the

college was granted autonomous status, Administrative Council-

Petitioner No.1 was accepted in accordance with the Government

Resolution. The said report also states that Respondent No.4-

Society is not connected with the affairs of Petitioner No.2. We are

informed that the said report has not been challenged till date by

anyone.

(xiv)The things did not rest here, but a representation was made to the

Department of Law and Justice of Respondent No.1-State seeking

its views for appointment of administrator on Petitioner No.2-

College. On 11th January 2017, the said department gave opinion

that Petitioner No.1-Council is a separate and independent entity

managing the affairs of Petitioner No.2-College and the existence

of Petitioner No.1 was independent of Respondent No.4-Society.

13 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

The said opinion has not been withdrawn till today by Respondent

No.1-State.

(xv) On 7th July 2017, on a complaint by Respondent No.4, an Ad hoc

Committee was appointed as administrator to run Petitioner No.2-

College. The Petitioner No.1 challenged the said appointment of

the administrator before this Court in Writ Petition No.7685 of

2017. The said communication has been stated by this Court vide

order dated 10th July 2017 and the said petition is also pending as

on today.

(xvi)On 12th February 2018, UGC issued Regulations interalia laying

down the rules for management of autonomous colleges for

maintenance of standards with respect to governance, etc. Rule 13

of the said Regulations prescribed the composition of the

Governing Body to include 5 members from the Trust, 2 teachers

nominated by the Principal, 1 Educationist/Industrialist and 1

nominee each from UGC, State and University. The Principal was

to be treated as ex-officio member of the said governing body. The

said notification was adopted by Respondent No.1-State.

(xvii)On 19th September 2019, the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 addressed

letters to Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 to nominate their

representative on Petitioner No.1-Council for a term of 3 years.

Pursuant to this request, all the Respondents nominated their

14 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

representatives on the body of Petitioner No.1-Administrative

Council. This is very important, since the nomination of

representatives of all the concern Respondents on the Petitioner

No.1-Body is post 2018 UGC Regulations and thereby recognition

was acceded to by the Respondents about the status of Petitioner

No.1 being a body incharge of and in control of management and

affairs of the Petitioner No.2-College.

(xviii)On 5th May 2022 and 12th May 2022, Respondent No.7-UGC and

Respondent No.1-State nominated their representatives on

Petitioner No.1 Administrative Council for the period of 5 years

and 3 years respectively beginning from 2022.

(xix) On 12th May 2022, Respondent No.1 in its letter to the Principal

of Petitioner No.2-College nominated Joint Director of Technical

Education to the Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council as per

letter dated 17th February 2022 of Respondent No.7-UGC.

(xx) On 4th October 2022, pursuant to the letter of Respondent No.4-

Society, Respondent No.1-State informed Respondent No.4 that

Respondent No.3 was nominated on the Governing Board

constituted by Respondent No.4. This communication is under

challenge in this petition.

(xxi)On 12th October 2022, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 addressed a letter

to Respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 7 cautioning about the letters being

15 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

sent by Respondent Nos.4 and 8 to concerned Authorities for

nomination on the Board of Governors of Respondent No.4 which

according to the Petitioner was illegally constituted by Respondent

No.4.

(xxii) On 4th November 2022, Respondent No.5-University in response

to a letter of Respondent No.4-Society nominated its member on

the Governing Body constituted by Respondent No.4-Society. This

communication is also under challenge in the present petition.

(xxiii)On 9th November 2022, Petitioner No.1-Council issued a notice

to all its members informing about a meeting to be held on 23 rd

November 2022 of the newly constituted Governing Body and on

23rd November 2022, a new committee of Petitioner No.1-

Administrative Council came into existence.

(xxiv)On 25th November 2022, Respondent No.7 UGC refused to

nominate its members on the Governing Board formed by

Respondent No.4.

5. It is on the above backdrop that the present Writ Petition

came to be filed inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside of the

communication dated 4th October 2022 addressed by Respondent No.1-

State to Respondent No.4 Society and the communication dated 4 th

November 2022 addressed by Respondent No.5-University to

Respondent No.4-Society and further praying for a declaration to hold

16 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Petitioner No.1-Council has a body in-charge and in control of affairs

of Petitioner No.2-College.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the

Respondents and have also perused the documents annexed to the

petition, replies, rejoinders, compilation of the documents and brief

submissions filed by the parties.

Submissions of the Petitioners :-

7. The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners submitted

that an attempt is made by Respondent No.4 to take over control and

management of Petitioner No.2-College by de-recognizing the body

being Petitioner No.1-Council lawfully constituted since 1956. He took

us through history of the College since 1947 and submitted that on

account of financial problems of Petitioner No.2-College which was

managed by Respondent No.4 upto 1956 and on a request made by the

State Government, Central Government and Respondent No.4,

Petitioner No.3-Trust bailed out the College by giving donation on the

condition that the management and control of the affairs of the College

would be by a Body which would be constituted at the behest of the

Government and which is to be controlled by Petitioner No.3-Trust. The

Petitioners submit that Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council body is

recognised by the statutory authorities including all the Respondents till

17 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

the dispute arose between Respondent No.4 and the Petitioners. The

Petitioners took us through various documents in support of its

submissions. The Petitioners submitted that Respondent No.1 and

Respondent No.5 are not justified in nominating its members on the

Board of Governors constituted by Respondent No.4. The Petitioners

submitted that on a perusal of various resolutions and documents, since

1956, Respondent No.4-Society agreed to give up control and

management of the affairs of Petitioner No.2-College in favour of the

Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council for all the times to come.

Respondent No.4-Society agreed for division of its assets and liabilities

between the College and the Society and in furtherance thereof, the

assets of the College were handed over to the Petitioner No.1 along with

liabilities. Petitioner No.1 submitted that their constitution is in

accordance with all the Rules and Regulations including UGC

Regulations and therefore, the impugned action of Respondent Nos.1, 2,

3, 4 and 5 is illegal and bad-in-law. The Petitioners therefore, submitted

that the Writ Petition be allowed in terms of prayers made in the

petition.

Submissions of Respondent No.4-Society :-

8. The learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No.4

submitted that Petitioner No.1 is their own creation and therefore, they

18 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

have a right to bring to an end such a body. It was submitted that

Petitioner No.2-College belongs to Respondent No.4-Society and for the

same, they have relied upon the accounts for various years including the

year ending 31st March 1978. Respondent No.4 further submitted that

the constitution of Petitioner No.1 is not in accordance with 2018 UGC

Regulations and the Government Resolution of Respondent No.1 of

2012 and therefore, they as a parent body of Petitioner No.1-Council

have the right to constitute Board of Governors for control and

management of the affairs of the College. Respondent No.4-Society

further submitted that they have passed resolutions superseding

Petitioner No.1 in the year 2010. Respondent No.4 has also challenged

the legal status of Petitioner No.1 to maintain the present petition.

Respondent No.4-Society further submitted that various resolutions

passed by them ousting Petitioner No.1 has not been challenged.

Respondent No.4 therefore, contended that the Writ Petition deserves to

be dismissed.

Submissions of Respondent No.1-State :-

9. The learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.1 submitted

that the constitution of Petitioner No.1 is not in accordance with the

Government Resolution of the State dated 23rd October 2012 since the

authorities specified in autonomous College are not in place as per the

said Government Resolution. Respondent No.1 relied upon paragraphs

19 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

5, 7, 9 and 11 of the said Government Resolution in support of its

justification for sending their nomination on the Board of Governors of

Respondent No.4-Society. Respondent No.4 further submitted that the

constitution of Petitioner No.1 is also not in accordance with 2018 UGC

Regulations and for the said propositions, he relied upon paragraph 13

of the 2018 UGC Regulations. Respondent No.1 also challenged the

legal status of Petitioner No.1 in filing the present petition. Respondent

No.1 therefore, submitted that they are justified in nominating their

representatives on the Board of Governors of Respondent No.4.

Submissions of Respondent No.5-University :-

10. Respondent No.5-University has adopted the arguments

canvassed by Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.1.

Submissions of Respondent No.7-UGC :-

11. Respondent No.7 submitted that insofar as the UGC is

concerned, it is neither supporting or opposing the Petitioner or the

Respondent No.4. It was mainly concerned with the excellence of

academics for which it is constituted. Respondent No.7 has submitted

that none of its action is under challenge in the Writ Petition. The

learned counsel for the Respondent No.7 took us through the

Regulations to explain the scheme of 2018 Regulations and further

submitted that 2018 UGC Regulations have been replaced now by 2023

20 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

UGC Regulations. Respondent No.7 also took us through certain list of

dates and events filed by the Petitioners. Respondent No.7 relied upon

its affidavit-in-reply filed in the present petition in support of its neutral

stand taken. Respondent No.7 also submitted that the autonomous

status of Petitioner No.2-College is not disturbed and is valid upto 2026-

27. Respondent No.7 submitted that they have communicated with the

Principal of the College and not with the Petitioner or Respondent No.4

and in support thereof took us through some of the letters which were

addressed to the Principal of the College.

Submissions of Respondent No.8- P. S. Deshmukh :-

12. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.8 submitted that

he ought not to have been made a party in-person moreso because no

relief is claimed against him. He took us through a note showing the

matters pending before various other Courts where he was a party in

the disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No.4.

Submissions of the Intervenor- Governing Board constituted

by Respondent No.4-Society to manage Petitioner No.2-College :-

13. The learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that the

Petitioner No.1 owes its existence to executive instructions of 1956 and

Petitioner No.1 is neither a Society nor a Trust. It was submitted that

Petitioner No.1 ceased to be in power and control post the 2018 UGC

21 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Regulation. It is not the contention of the Petitioner that they are

Governing Body as per 2018 UGC Regulations. It is the Intervenor's

submission that 2018 UGC Regulations override executive instructions

of 1956 Administrative Council Rules. The Intervenor has taken us

through 2018 UGC Regulations and 2023 UGC Regulations and more

particularly definition of Governing Board, Parent University, Statutory

body, etc. and submitted that there is no definition in these Regulations

in which the Petitioner No.1 would fall. The Intervenor prayed for

dismissal since they are the governing body of Petitioner No.2-College.

Rejoinder of the Petitioners :-

14. The Petitioners in Rejoinder submitted that nobody is

disputing the setting up of Petitioner No.2-College by Respondent No.4

nor it is the case of the Petitioners that they are owners of the college,

but what is being contested in the present petition is the control and

management as to who is in-charge of Petitioner No.2-College. The

Petitioner has taken us through compilation of documents to show that

it is they who were collecting fees, incurring various expenditure, filing

the tax returns etc. Petitioner No.1 further submitted that their

constitution is in accordance with 2012 Government Resolution upto

2018 UGC Regulation. He further submitted that the Intervenor have

not explained as to if they were constituted in 2012 why the first

meeting was held in the year 2022 after a period of 10 year and after a

22 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

period of 4 years from 2018 UGC Regulation. Minutes of the first

Governing Body of Respondent No.4 dated 28 th November 2022 does

not have any principal or representative of Respondent Nos.6 and 7 and

therefore the formation of Governing Body who are intervenors is itself

bad in law. The Petitioner further submitted that if the intervenor was

constituted in 2012 then there is no reason given by Respondent No.1

to have sent their nominee for the first time in the year 2022. The

learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners took us through the minutes

of the first meeting of the intervenor and contended that upto 2022

they were not in existence. With respect to submission of Respondent

No.1-State, the Petitioners submitted that they are in compliance with

the said 2012 Government Resolution and they have vested right to

manage and control Petitioner No.2. The Petitioners further submitted

that spirit of 2012 Resolution and 2018 UGC Regulations is to separate

the ownership from the management and the constitution of Petitioner

No.1 is in consonance with the said Government Resolution and

Regulation. The Petitioners again took us through the relevant dates

and events in support of their submissions that on going through

various events from 1956, the management rights of Petitioner No.2-

College vests with Petitioner No.1. The Petitioner further submitted that

from 1956 till 2022, the Respondents nominated their representatives

on its Administrative Council which justifies the existence and

23 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

recognition of Petitioner No.1 being in-charge of the control and

management of the affairs of the college. The Petitioner also brought to

our notice the composition of Administrative Council (Governing Body)

for the period 2019 to 2022, wherein the members consisted of

representatives from Petitioner No.3, Respondent No.4 Government of

India, Respondent Nos.5, 6, 7 etc. The said composition is in accordance

with the Resolution of Respondent No.4 dated 3 rd October 1961 which

states that 4 out of 3 representative of Respondent No.4-Society would

be approved by Petitioner No.3.

Sur-Rejoinder of Respondent No.4-Society :-

15. Respondent No.4 submitted that it is they who have created

the Petitioner No.1 and therefore they are justified in putting an end to

such a body. Respondent No.4 challenged the legal existence of

Petitioner No.1 by relying upon UGC Regulation. It is the contention of

Respondent No.4 that upto 2018 UGC Regulation they were running the

college and post 2018 it is the intervenor who is running the college.

Respondent No.4-Society therefore submitted that the Petition be

dismissed.

Analysis and Conclusions:-

16. At the outset, we wish to state that we have reproduced the

submissions of the parties in brief and have dealt with exhaustively in

24 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

our reasoning therefore, we do not find it necessary to reproduce the

submissions in detail as argued before us and we have considered the

relevant submissions of the parties in our reasoning.

17. Although in the present Writ Petition the challenge is to the

communication dated 4th October 2022 by Respondent No.1-State to

Respondent No.4-Society and of 4th November 2022, by Respondent

No.5-University to Respondent No.4-Society, in effect the crux of the

matter is that this Court is called upon to adjudicate the correct body to

which the representatives of the respondents are required to nominate

their representatives and it is this body that the Petitioner no.2-College

would be controlled and managed. The issue really appears to be a

fight between the Respondent No.3-Trust and Respondent No.4-Society.

Although this would have been private dispute between private parties

but since representatives of the Government and statutory bodies are to

be nominated on the body which is required to control and manage the

College, the issue seeks determination in the Writ Petition. None of the

parties before us have raised the issue of maintainability and

furthermore since it is concerning the nomination to be made by the

Government and the Statutory Authorities. We accordingly take upon

ourselves the adjudication of the Writ Petition.

18. The communication impugned in the present petition is of the

year 2022 and the contesting respondents submissions relate to non-

25 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

compliance of 2012 Government Resolution and 2018 UGC Regulations

but it has a long past history which needs examination. Past will show

us the light in present to traverse into future. The current and present

dispute cannot be resolved without ignoring the past and it is the past

which will guide us to arrive at the resolution of the dispute which we

have been called upon to decide. Therefore, our analysis begins from

the year 1955 so as to arrive at a conclusion on the intention of the

parties as to which is the body in-charge of and in control of the

management and affairs of the Petitioner no.2-College.

19. The issue raised for our consideration revolves around control

and management of 'Walchand College of Engineering, Sangli' (for

short "College"). The Petitioner No.1's control is sought to be disturbed

by the action of the contesting Respondents and more particularly

action of Respondent No.1-State and Respondent No.5-University. In

our view, based on the analysis made hereinafter, the control and

management of the College would continue to be with the Petitioners

and more particularly, Petitioner No.1 since the intention and acts of

Respondent No.4-Society was to give up the control and management

of the college. We may clarify that we are not adjudicating the

ownership rights of the College and its assets, but what we are called

upon to decide is only the issue of control and management through the

body and with whom does it lie, whether it is the Petitioner No.1 or the

26 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Intervenor body constituted by Respondent No.4 ?

20. Prior to 1954, the College was run by Respondent No.4-

Society. However, as evident from 3 rd June 1954 letter written by

Respondent No.4-Society to Respondent No.1-State (as it then was), the

College was staring at precarious financial problems and, therefore, the

Respondent No.4-Society proposed two alternatives to Respondent

No.1. The 1st alternative being Respondent No.1-State would give

special financial grant to help Respondent No.4-Society to pay off

liabilities of the College once for all so that the College could stand on a

stable footing and start with a clean slate. The 2 nd alternative proposed

by Respondent No.4-Society was that the Respondent No.1-State would

take over the College with all its assets for future management. The

Respondent No.4 in the said letter admitted that it has nurtured the

College, but is willing to sacrifice the same for the larger public interest.

The Respondent No.4-Society in the said letter also suggested

Respondent No.1-State that they are opened for any other alternative to

save the College. This shows that Respondent No.4-Society had made

up its mind to give up the management and control of the College since

the College was facing severe financial difficulties and they lacked

financial resources to fund the running of the college and further they

were open to any suggestion by the State to save the college.

27 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

21. Pursuant to the above request, Respondent No.1-State

requested Petitioner No.3-Trust to intervene and bail out the College by

giving donation. The Petitioner No.3-Trust agreed to the said proposal

and vide letter dated 22nd March 1955 addressed to Respondent No.4-

Society with a copy marked to Respondent No.1-State agreed to donate

a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on the conditions specified therein one of them

being that due representation shall be given to Petitioner No.3-Trust on

the Governing Body of the College, so as to give them a share in the

control and management of the College and further every year, 5

students will be nominated by Petitioner No.3-Trust for admission to the

College. In addition to this condition, the Petitioner No.3 also imposed

a condition that the name of the College be changed from 'New

Engineering College' to 'Seth Walchand Hirachand College of

Engineering". The aforesaid proposal of Petitioner No.3-Trust was

principally accepted by Respondent No.1-State and Respondent No.4-

Society which is evident from letter of 28 th March 1955 addressed by

Respondent No.1-State to Petitioner No.3-Trust and also letter of the

same date addressed by Respondent No.4-Society to the Petitioner No.3-

Trust. On the very same day, Petitioner No.3-Trust addressed a letter to

Respondent No.4-Society enclosing a donation of Rs.3,00,000/- being

part payment of the donation of Rs.5,00,000/-. This letter of Petitioner

No.3 also records that the amount donated should not be utilised

28 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

without the approval of the committee to be appointed by the

Government. This appears to be because, Petitioner No.3-Trust wanted

to ensure that the amount donated is utilised for improving the

financial health of the College. In our view, reliance placed by

Respondent No.4-Society on this condition does not take the case of the

Respondent No.4 any further, but on the contrary, it supports the case of

the Petitioners inasmuch as, it indicates the background in which the

Petitioner No.3-Trust was called upon to save the College from financial

problems coupled with Respondent No.4-Society's intention to give up

the management of Petitioner No.2-College. This letter has to be read

along with the previous letters of 3 rd June 1954, 22nd March 1955 and

exchange of letters of 28th March 1955 between the parties which are

referred to hereinabove and if read so there cannot be any doubt that

Respondent No.4-Society wanted to handover the control and

management of the College to Petitioner No.3-Trust.

22. Pursuant to the above, on 16th May 1955, a meeting of ad-hoc

committee took place in which Mr. Gulabchand Hirachand,

representative of the Petitioner No.3-Trust was present. Various issues

were discussed including the renaming of the College and a resolution

was passed by the committee to rename the College as "Walchand

College of Engineering" instead of "Seth Walchand Hirachand College

of Engineering" as requested by Petitioner No.3-Trust in letter dated

29 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

22nd March 1955. In the said meeting, it was also resolved that the

constitution of committee be informed to Respondent No.1-State. The

minutes of the said meeting was confirmed on 24 th June 1955 on which

day, the 2nd meeting of the Ad hoc Committee was held and request

Petitioner No.3-Trust for 2 seats on the Council was also recorded. In

the said meeting, it was also resolved that the Rules and Regulations of

the Administrative Council were to be send to Respondent No.1-State by

Respondent No.4-Society. Pursuant to these 2 meetings, the name of

the College came to be changed to "Walchand Engineering College" as

per the condition and request of Petitioner No.3-Trust. This was a step

for transfer of control and management of the College from Respondent

No.4 to Petitioner No.3 through Administrative Council.

23. The setting up of "Administrative Council" in place of "Ad hoc

Committee was approved by Government of India on 4 th September

1956 and same was communicated to Respondent No.1-State, a copy of

which was also marked to Respondent No.4-Society. Government of

India also stated in the letter dated 4th September 1956 that

composition, powers and functions of the Administrative Council may

be decided and the rules and regulations may be framed by the said

Council and send for approval of the Central Government and the State

Government. In the Committee, 50% of the members were to be

nominated by the Society founding the Institution and the balance 50%

30 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

were nominees from various other institutions like Central Government,

State Government, etc. The functions of the managing committee were

also recommended in the said letter by the Government of India. The

Central Government expressed their desire that Administrative Council

of Walchand College should be in conformity with the said

recommendation and suggested that Administrative Council should

consist of 11 members of whom the Principal will be ex-officio member

and the Secretary. Out of 11 members, 4 persons were to be nominated

by Respondent No.4-Society, one by Petitioner No.3-Trust and others by

Central Government, State Government, University, etc. The Central

Government also suggested to Respondent No.4-Society that the

Chairman of the Council may be elected by the Council from among its

member. All appointments including that of the principal shall be made

by the Administrative Council on the recommendation of the Selection

Committee. One of the important suggestion made by the Central

Government in the said letter was to Rule 7(g) which stated that the

budget of the College should be framed by the Administrative Council

and should not be subject to the control of Respondent No.4-Society

and the views of Respondent No.4-Society can be presented through its

representative while framing the budget. This shows that divesting of

control of Respondent No.4-Society on the finances of Petitioner No.2-

College in favour of Petitioner No.1-Council. In this letter, comments

31 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

made with respect to Rule 19 is also important, which states that

Respondent No.4-Society shall not be entitled to charge rent for the

College building and all references to the Board of Control of

Respondent No.4-Society should be deleted and the Administrative

Council shall not be subordinate to the Board of Control. The

Respondent No.4-Society was directed to set up Administrative Council

in accordance with the suggestion made by the Government of India in

the letter dated 4th September 1956. Two important things come out

from this direction; firstly, that the finance of the College was to be

managed by the Administrative Council and the Respondent No.4-

Society would have no say in it except expressing its views through its

representative on the Council. The functions of the Administrative

Council were to manage the affairs of the institute, which is the running

of the College and thirdly, it was a clear understanding that the Board of

Control of Respondent No.4-Society would be replaced with the

"Administrative Council" insofar as the control and management of the

College is concerned. This indicates that even the Government of India

and Respondent No.4-Society agreed to handover the control and

management of the College to Administrative Council and in whose

functions, no interference was sought to be made by Respondent No.4-

Society. The reason we have analysed this letter is to come to a

conclusion that right from 1955, the correspondence and the actions

32 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

clearly indicates that Respondent No.4-Society for all time to come had

agreed to give up the control and management of the College in favour

of Petitioner No.1-Council.

24. Merely because, the Administrative Council had 4 persons

nominated by Respondent No.4-Society, it would not mean that

Respondent No.4 was in control and management of the College. The

control and management was to be given to an independent body called

"Administrative Council." Therefore, the reliance placed on the

constitution of Administrative Council in this letter by Respondent No.4-

Society does not go on to show that the management and control of the

College was always intended to be with Respondent No.4-Society, but

on the contrary Rule 7(g) and 19 clearly indicates otherwise i.e.

Respondent No.4-Society would not have any say in the management

and control of the College, except to express its views through its

representative in framing the budget. The intention of the parties

appears to divest the powers of control and management of the college

from Respondent No.4 to an independent body "Administrative

Council." The setting up of "Administrative Council" was directed by

Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.4-Society and therefore today they

cannot be heard to contend otherwise.

25. On 20th November 1956, in the General Body Meeting of

Respondent no.4-Society, Administrative Council (Constitution and

33 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Power), Rules came to be passed. It is important to note that these

Rules were passed pursuant to the directions given by Government of

India and Respondent No.1-State to Respondent No.4-Society for

divorcing the management and control of the College from Respondent

No.4-Society to an independent body "Administrative Council". The

Respondent No.4-Society in this General Body Meeting superseded its

earlier rules for administration of the College and it was agreed that the

administration of the affairs of the College shall vest from 22nd

November 1956 in an Administrative Council. The constitution of the

Administrative Council was also specified which consisted of 11

members which included Principal of the College, one nominee each

from Petitioner No.3-Trust, Respondent No.1-State, Respondent No.2-

Technical Education, Respondent No.5, etc. and 4 nominees from

Respondent No.4. The said Rules stated that Board of Control of

Respondent No.4 will not have any control on the Administrative

Council. The powers of the Council were agreed upon which included

the management of the affairs of the College and its expenditure in

addition to other powers relating to running of the College, namely,

appointment of staff, regulating the service conditions of the Staff,

appointment of auditors, fixing College fees, etc. and more particularly

framing Bye-laws for the efficient working of the Council and the

College. The Bye-laws governing Administrative Council were named as

34 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Administrative Council (Constitution and Powers) Rules 1956. The said

rules provided for all the aspects of running the College and the body to

run the College was with the Administrative Council. Rule 2 of the said

Rules defined 'council', 'society', 'college', 'member', etc. The

constitution of the Council and filling up of the vacancy was also

provided in these Rules. Number of times the council would meet and

the business to be discussed was also provided in the said Rules. Rule 8

of these Rules provided for maintaining the accounts of the College by

the Council and its audit at the close of each year by the auditor to be

appointed by the Council. The Secretary was made responsible for

preparing statement of receipts and expenditure and presenting the

same before the Council at every meeting. The Rules also provided for

considering audited accounts of the College by the Council and sending

the copy of the auditor's report and the accounts to Respondent No.1-

State, Government of India and Respondent No.4 for information. The

Rules also provided for assignment of the buildings, structures, etc. of

the College by the Council and it was specifically provided that neither

the Council nor the Respondent No.4-Society would create any

encumbrance on the building on which the College is situated. The said

Rules also provided for receipt of grants and utilization of the said

grants for the purposes of the College and a report of the same would

be send to Respondent No.4.

35 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

26. On a reading of the said Rules in entirety, it clearly shows that

the management and control of the running of the College was vested

in the Administrative Council de-hors Respondent No.4-Society. We do

not agree with the contention of Respondent No.4-Society that merely

because the statement of grants and its expenditure is to be given to the

Respondent No.4, the Society can be said to be in the control and

management of the affairs of the College. Rule 10 very specifically

states that the auditor's report and statement of grant and its utilization

would be given to Respondent No.4 only for its "information." From

that, it cannot be said that Respondent No.4-Society was in control of

the affairs of the College but the Rules clearly show that it was the

Administrative Council which had the powers and duty to run the

College and manage the affairs, maintain accounts, get the accounts

audited, etc. The fees, appointment of staff, service condition of the

staff working in the College, budget, etc. all aspects of running the

College were vested with the Administrative Council. Therefore, in our

view, we do not agree with the contentions of Respondent No.4, based

on these Rules that as certain reports were to be given to Respondent

No.4-Society, it had a control and management of the College, which

reports were only for the purpose of "information" of Respondent No.4.

27. On 17th June 1957, a report of sub-committee formed by the

Administrative Council of the College made a report titled as Property

36 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

(Demarcation) Committee Report. The said committee was formed at

the behest of the Administrative Council which consisted of 4 members

from Respondent No.4-Society. In the said report, the Committee has

observed that they had a prolonged discussion with the Chairman of the

Respondent No.4-Society. The Committee was formed to consider and

suggest bifurcation of the properties, assets and liabilities of Respondent

No.4-Society between the Administrative Council of the College and

Respondent No.4-Society. The objective was to earmark the properties

and liabilities for purpose of Administration, Management and Control

of the College, so that the Council should have effective control over

the properties of the College. The Respondent No.4-Society has relied

upon the said report in support of its submission that the management

and control of the College continues to be with Respondent No.4. We,

however, do not agree with the contention of Respondent No.4-Society,

inasmuch as we are not concerned with the ownership of the properties

in the present proceedings before us, but what we are concerned with is

to ascertain based on this report as to who is in-charge and control of

the management and affairs of the College. The said report confirms

that the Administrative Council was established for the efficient

management of the College and of the properties and assets of the

College. It further reiterates that the Council was formed for taking

over not only the management of the College but also the management

37 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

of all the properties connected with the running of the College including

taking over of the liabilities. The said committee report also records

that the Society would not take over the liabilities related to the assets

of the College when the property and the assets are to be managed by

the Council. The report records that on taking over of the properties

and assets of the College by the Council, the Society would reciprocally

devest itself in favour of the Administrative Council of all powers of

disposal over the properties and assets so taken over by the Council.

We do not dispute the contention of the Respondent No.4-Society that

Administrative Council was set up in accordance with the wishes and

directions of the Government of India and Respondent No.1-State, but

the very same clause also records that the Administrative Council was

set up for efficient management of the College and the properties and

assets connected therewith. It also records taking over of the

management by the Council from Respondent No.4-Society including all

the movable and immovable assets connected to the College and its

affairs. The committee also records that an amount of Rs.750/- would

be paid to Respondent No.4-Society for the use of two hostels by the

Administrative Council. It also records that on the properties being

assigned to the Council, Respondent No.4 would cease to have any

liability in respect thereof including their maintenance, repairs,

payment of taxes, etc. It expressly records that the Council shall not be

38 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

liable to pay any rent and fee in respect of the properties taken over by

the Council. The report also records taking over of the liabilities

pertaining to these assets by the Council.

28. The reading of this report as a whole would clearly indicate

that Respondent No.4-Society agreed to give up the control and

management of the College and the assets connected therewith

including disowning of the liabilities in running the College and

attached to the College. It also records that Respondent No.4 could not

fund and develop the College after a point which resulted into burden

of outstanding liabilities. The report records and appreciates the

intervention of Petitioner No.3-Trust for saving the College from being

closed down and further saving the society from dragging down. In our

view, this report relied upon by Respondent No.4-Society in support of

its submissions goes against itself inasmuch as this report records that

the management and control of the College was for all purpose

intended and in fact handed over to the Administrative Council

including the intention to handover the assets and liabilities of the

College to the Council. The said report of Property Committee was duly

acceped by Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.4-Society in their

respective meetings held on 13th July 1957 and 27th July 1957. The

copy of these resolutions were also forwarded to Respondent Nos.1 to

3-State by Petitioner No.1. Respondent No.4-Society in the said

39 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

resolution on 27th July 1957 confirms the division of the properties and

assets and passes a resolution that the arrangement in the nature of

Trust would subsist in future for the effective control and management

of the said properties by the Petitioner No.1. In our view, although no

conveyance was executed between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent

No.4 but in effect name of Respondent No.4-Society appeared for the

benefit of Petitioner No.1-Council. The reason for referring to this

resolution is to come to a conclusion that Respondent No.4-Society

agreed to divest itself from the management and control of the college

and Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State were kept in lope by the Petitioner

No.1 and Respondent No.4 of this arrangement. Pursuant to the above

agreement between the Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 and Respondent No.4,

Respondent No.4-Society on 27th May 1964 handed over possession of

land and building of the college to Petitioner No.1 for the use of the

college and its activities. It further indicates that Respondent No.4 had

divested itself from the management and control of the college so that

the Petitioner No.1 can effectively run the college.

29. The Government of India agreed to have two nominations of

Petitioner No.3-Trust on the Administrative Council of the College. This

was in pursuance to a further donation of Rs.3 lakhs by Petitioner No.3-

Trust for the purpose of college. This indicates the intention of the

Government of India to give control of the college to Petitioner No.3.

40 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

This arrangement has been accepted by Respondent No.4-Society in its

resolution of 3rd October 1961. The said resolution of Respondent No.4-

Society acknowledges that the donation of Petitioner No.3-Trust is for

the benefit of the college and it further states that Respondent No.4

shall not incur any borrowing debts or other liabilities on the properties

of the college in future without the prior approval and consent of the

Petitioner No.1 since the properties belong to the college. Respondent

No.4-Society further resolved that the said resolution is irrevocable

and same would not be altered, amended or modified without the

consent of the Petitioner No.1. Respondent No.4 further agreed in the

said meetings that 3 out of 4 of its representative on the Council would

be persons approved by Petitioner No.3-Trust. The said resolution has

been relied upon by Respondent No.4 in opposing the petition, but the

said resolution on the contrary goes against Respondent No.4 inasmuch

as this resolution read with the previous correspondence between the

parties clearly shows that for all times to come Respondent No.4 ceded

its contrary over the management of the college in favour of Petitioner

Nos.1 and 3. Therefore, in our view, Respondent No.4 is not justified in

relying upon this resolution but on the contrary it strengthens the case

of the Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 when read with the earlier correspondence

and events.

41 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

30. The College continued to run smoothly by Petitioner No.1-

Council based on above agreement/understanding between the

Petitioners and the Respondents for almost 2 decades.

31. The Administrative Council Rules were amended in the year

1971 and 1977 and as per the amended rules, the Administrative

Council consisted of 12 members excluding the Principal of the College.

Out of the said 12 members two were nominees of Petitioner No.3-

Trust, 3 out of 4 representative of Respondent No.4-Society were to be

approved by Petitioner No.3 and the balance were representatives from

Government of India, Respondent No.1-State, Respondent Nos.5-

University and 6-AICTE. The Rules further reinforce that Petitioner

No.1-Council would not be subject to the control of Respondent No.4-

Society, but shall exercise the powers and perform functions in

confirmation with the Council's Rules, and it further reiterates vesting of

administration of the college with Petitioner No.1. The powers of the

Council related to all the aspects of running the college and managing

the affairs of the said college. These Rules were amended in the

presence of representative of Respondent No.4-Society and therefore

today Respondent No.4 cannot contend that they can take the control

and administration of the college by forming a new governing body.

The said Rules also provided for powers and duties of the Principal,

Constitution of Finance Committee, Building Committee and Equipment

42 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Committee. In our view, therefore, the attempt on the part of the

Respondent No.4-Society to challenge the constitution of Petitioner

No.1 would be contrary to the Petitioner No.1 Rules to which the

Respondent No.4-Society was a party.

32. The Petitioner No.1-Council has shown us minutes of the

meeting of the Petitioner No.1 which is dated 20th March 2003 wherein

the representatives of the Petitioner No.3, Respondent Nos.1 to 6 were

present and discussion on working of college, application for autonomy,

financial status, new appointment etc. was discussed to buttress their

contention on the aspect of control.

33. The Respondent No.1-State on 21st March 2005 issued

guidelines with respect to approval for implementing TEQIP in Non

Government partially aided technical education in the State. It is stated

that upon the Board of Governor being lawfully constituted and upon

obtaining educational autonomy from the Universities, these Institution

shall function as only autonomous body and the administration and

management of the affairs would be with Board of Governors. The

Constitution of Board of Governor was also specified in the said

guidelines which included two members from reputed Institute

appointed through Government, three members appointed at

institutional level, one member ex-officio appointed by Respondent

No.2, one member from Institution senate, two member from IIT

43 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Mumbai or similarly reputed institution, one member from Technical

Education Department and Respondent No.1-State etc. The Petitioners

rightly submitted that the Administrative Council had the requisite

members which were required by these guidelines and the role of

Administrative Council is identical to the Board of Governor, and

therefore even if nomenclature the Administrative Council is not 'Board

of Governor' but the ingredients required to constitute of 'Board of

Governor' are present in the Constitution of 'Administrative Council'.

The Petitioner has taken us through the Constitution of the

"Administrative Council" in support thereof and we are agree that

although the nomenclature is not of 'Board of Governors', the

constitution of Administrative Council is pari-materia with that of Board

of Governors. Therefore, it cannot be said that the constitution of

Petitioner No.1 is in violation of the said guidelines and in any case no

action is taken by any authority on this issue which reinforces the case

of the Petitioners of their being in compliance therewith.

34. In the year 2011, Respondent No.6-AICTE nominated two

members on the so called governing body of the College on the premise

that it belongs to Respondent No.4. However, on realizing that there is

a dispute with respect to control of the College, the nomination were

withdrawn. This indicates that the control and management of the

college was never with Respondent No.4-Society post 1956. Respondent

44 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

No.4 challenged the action of Respondent No.6 in withdrawing

nominations of its representative on the Board of Governors for the

period of 2013 to 2016 and illegal formation of Petitioner No.1 before

the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No.5883 of 2012. However, the

said Writ Petition came to be withdrawn by Respondent No.4-Society.

Although liberty was granted, Respondent No.4 did not take any action

thereafter which indicates that Respondent No.4 had recognized

Petitioner No.1 as controller and manager of the college. The

proceeding before Delhi High Court also recognizes that Respondent

No.6 by nominating its representative on Petitioner No.1-Administrative

Council, gives recognition to the fact that Respondent No.6 recognizes

Petitioner No.1-AICTE to be in-charge of and in control and

management of and in the affairs of the College.

35. It is also important to note that in the RTI reply dated 13 th

August 2013 by Respondent Nos.1-State to 3 pursuant to various

queries raised by one Mr. Vivek Bodas, Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State

stated that representative of the Government is being appointed on

Petitioner No.1-Council which Council is formulated by Petitioner No.3-

Trust and Rules of Petitioner No.1 are consistent with guidelines of

Respondent Nos.6-AICTE and 7-University. The said reply also records

the events starting from 1955 to 1961 by which the Petitioner No.1 was

constituted. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 also accepted in the reply that the

45 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

ownership of the college is with Administrative Board of the Society.

This RTI query confirms the fact that the rules of Petitioner No.1 are

consistent with the Rules and Regulations of Respondent Nos.6-AICTE

and 7-UGC and the affairs of the college is being managed by

Administrative Council-Petitioner No.1 and further there is separation of

ownership and management. The stand of Respondent No.1-State in

this reply is in consonance with the view which we have taken above

that although the nomenclature of the "Administrative Council" is not

"Board of Governors" but the constitution and its powers and duties are

same as that of Board of Governors. We make it clear that we are not

commenting upon the ownership issue in this Writ Petition. Therefore,

today Respondent Nos.1-State, 6-AICTE and 7-UGC cannot refuse to

recognize Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council as a body who is in-

charge of management and control of affairs of the college. This is also

the stand taken by Respondent No.6 which is also contrary to its own

action of 2nd December 2015, whereby they themselves have appointed

their member on the Administrative Council-Petitioner No.1 which they

themselves have termed as 'Governing Body of the College'. Therefore,

in our view, today Respondent Nos.6-All India Technical Education and

7-UGC cannot contend that the body 'Administrative Council' cannot be

construed as 'Governing body' nor Respondent No.1-State can argue

contrary thereto.

46 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

36. We are surprised on the stand taken by Respondent No.1-

State for derecognizing Petitioner No.1 as a body who is in-charge and

control of the affairs of the college. This stand of Respondent No.1 is

contrary to the enquiry report of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 dated 2 nd July

2016 which are part of its own Department of Technical Education. Dr.

P. M. Khodke report was prepared by a Committee of 3 eminent persons

to enquire about the authority that had the right in respect of

administration, disciplinary action, financial matters etc. of the college.

The Committee after giving opportunity of hearing to Petitioner No.1,

Respondent Nos.4, 8 etc. and after detailed deliberation came to a

conclusion that Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council has rights on the

matters of management and administration, financial, educational etc.

of the college. It further states that status of Petitioner No.1-

Administrative Council is accepted and same is in accordance with

Government Resolution. The said Committee comes to a conclusion that

Respondent No.4-Society and its Board of Control are not in anyway

connected with the matters of administration, financials, governance,

etc. of the college. We are not shown any document which indicates

that this report was challenged by any party. Therefore, in our view,

today it does not lie in the mouth of contesting Respondents to contend

that the control and management of the affairs of the college rests with

Respondent No.4-Society and more particularly Respondent No.1-State

47 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

and not with Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council. Any arguments

contrary to the Dr. P. M. Khodke report by the Respondents are to be

rejected.

37. The things having not stopped here, on a complaint made by

Respondent Nos.8-Shri. P. S. Deshmukh and Respondent No.4-Society,

Respondent No.2-Directorate of Technical Education sought a legal

opinion from Law and Judiciary Department of Respondent No.1 on the

appointment of Administrator on the college and whether Petitioner

No.1-Administrative Council of the college can be directed to convert

the Administrative Council into the Trust, the Law and Judiciary

Department examined the history from 1955 and after perusing all the

documents which are also considered by us above opined that the

Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council of the college is a separate and

independent entity other than Respondent No.4-Society and Petitioner

No.3-Trust. The said opinion also recognizes that the constitution of

Petitioner No.1 is as per Administrative Council Rules, 1956 as amended

from time to time and the said Council consists of nomination from

various bodies including Central and State Government, Respondent

No.4, Petitioner No.3 etc. The said opinion also accepts that

Administrative Council-Petitioner No.1 is in-charge of running and

management of the college. It also records the submission of

Respondent Nos.4 and 8 with respect to the body controlling the affairs

48 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

of management of the college. The said opinion comes to a conclusion

that Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council has not been negligent to

perform the duties imposed on it under the instrument which regulates

its administration or the college is being managed in a manner

detrimental to public interest. The opinion recognizes the constitution

of Petitioner No.1 as per rules and bye-laws and after detailed

deliberation the proposal for appointment of Administrator on the

college was rejected. The said report is dated 11 th January 2017 and

the same has not been challenged by anyone till today in any

proceedings. Therefore, in our view today, the issue of who is in control

of management and affairs of the college is no more res-integra atleast

insofar as Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 is concerned. In our view,

the submissions made by the Respondent No.1-State is contrary to their

own opinion and will have to be rejected.

38. It is important to note that Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition

No.14369 of 2022 had filed a Writ Petition in 2016 being Writ Petition

No.13025 of 2016 praying for direction against the statutory,

Government and other Authorities to send their representative on the

board for management of the College. This petition could have been

only on the basis that till 2016, Respondent No.4 had no control and

management of the affairs of the College. The interim relief was not

granted by the Court in Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 and the said

49 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

petition is pending till 2022, when we took up this matter along with

Writ Petition No.14369 of 2022. This itself shows that Respondent

No.4-Society was never in control and management of the affairs of the

College till today. It is also important to note that in Writ Petition

No.13025 of 2016 filed by Respondent No.4, there is another

Respondent No.9 by the same name as that of Respondent No.4. We are

informed that there is a dispute between the Respondent No.4, who is

Petitioner in Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 and Respondent No.9

therein, both claiming to be controlled the Society. In the light of these

facts, we are of the view that Respondent No.4 cannot be said to be in

control and management of the affairs of the College either post 2012

Government Resolution or post 2018 UGC Regulation and, therefore,

the impugned letters issued by Respondent No.1-State to Respondent

No.4-Society and Respondent No.5-University to Respondent No.4-

Society sending their nomination on the governing board is illegal.

39. The Respondent No.4 having failed in its attempt to get the

control of the college back made an application to Respondent Nos.1 to

3 for appointment of Administrator on the college vide letter dated 5 th

July 2017 and Respondent No.1 (inspite of earlier opinion of law

department which was only 6 months old) acted with lightening speed

by appointing and Ad-hoc Committee to run the college on 7 th July

2017. The said communication dated 7th July 2017 was challenged by

50 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council in its said capacity in Writ

Petition No.7685 of 2017. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 10 th

July 2017 stayed the impugned order of 7 th July 2017. The said petition

is pending as of today but the action of Respondents could not succeed

in the appointment of Administrator on account of the stay order passed

by this Court. This also indicates that time and again attempts made by

the Respondents failed to regain control over the college which as

history points out they themselves had given up long ago.

40. Coming to the UGC guidelines notified on 12th February 2018

(2018 Regulations) for autonomous colleges, it is the contention of all

the Respondents except Respondent No.7-UGC that the college is not

managed and administered in accordance with the said Regulations and

therefore, Respondent No.4 is justified in Constituting Governing Body

and Respondent No.1 and other the Respondents are justified in

nominating their representative on the said body constituted by

Respondent No.4. At the outset, on a perusal of 2018 Regulations of

UGC, we are of the view that the said Regulations are a self-contained

Code in itself for regulating the standards of autonomous colleges.

These 2018 Regulations are now replaced by 2023 Regulations. Insofar

as, clause 14 of 2018 Regulations is concerned it states that all UGC

directives shall be strictly followed, failing which UGC may take

appropriate action as it deems fit against the defaulting college. The

51 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

power to take action against autonomous college if UGC Regulations are

not adhered to is conferred only on UGC-Respondent No.7. We have not

been shown any document which will indicate that Respondent No.7-

UGC has taken any action against the college. In our view, if there is

any violation of 2018 UGC Regulations the appropriate authority to take

action would be Respondent No.7-UGC and on a pretext and

assumption and presumption of any violation the other Respondents

cannot come to a conclusion of any UGC Regulations violation for

setting up governing body to gain control and management of the

college moreso when the authority conferred to exercise the power has

not taken any action assuming there are any violations of these

Regulations. Therefore on this count itself, the action of Respondent

No.4 to constitute a parallel governing body and action of Respondent

Nos.1 and 5 to appoint their nominees on such a body on this pretext is

illegal and bad. If this course of action is permitted then it would lead

to a chaotic situation inasmuch as any person forming a view of

violation of any Rules and Regulations, without the concerned authority

taking action, would make an attempt to destabilize the management

and affairs of the smooth functioning of the college. Respondent No.1-

State can certainly should not take upon itself the powers and duties

and role of UGC regulatory authority. We cannot permit any such an

interpretation moreso, in the facts of this case.

52 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

41. 2018 UGC Regulations defines "academic council" to mean

the academic council of the autonomous college. The composition of

academic council is specified in clause 13.4 consisting of principal,

heads of department in the college, teachers of the college,

experts/academicians from outside the college, nominees of the

university etc. The constitution of the Petitioner No.1 confirms to the

constitution of the Academic Council mentioned in Clause 13.4

inasmuch as it has principal, representatives from various government

department, nominated professor, outside experts etc. Merely because

the nomenclature is of 'Administrative Council' and not 'Academic

Council' one cannot say that the college doesn't have Academic Council.

What is important is the constitution of the body and not the

nomenclature given to such a body. Therefore, in our view, since

constitution of Administrative Council is similar to that of Academic

Council, one cannot say that the college does not have Academic

Council and therefore, there is a violation of 2018 UGC Regulations. In

the annual report of college, there is also mention of Finance

Committee and therefore clause 13.6 of 2018 UGC Regulations is also

complied. Clause 13.6 provides for functions of the governing body and

the function specified in the 2018 Regulations are also the function

which appears in Administrative Council Rules of Petitioner No.1. The

annual report of the Petitioner shows constitution of Board of Studies

53 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

also. In our view, as per clause 13 of 2018 UGC Regulations which

provides that a autonomous college should have the governing body,

academic council, board of studies and finance committee are in

existence in the college. The 2018 UGC Regulations provides that the

governing body is different from trust board / board of management,

executive committee, management committee. This was with the view

to separate the professional management of the college with the

ownership. The constitution of Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council

is in line with said provision inasmuch as the college is run by

Administrative Council which is separate and different from Respondent

No.4-Society and this has been accepted by Respondent No.1 in its

enquiry report as well as the opinion of Law and Judiciary Department

which we have discussed in earlier paragraphs. As per clause 5 of 2018

Regulations, the State Government has to nominate an expert on the

body of the College which the State Government in the instant case has

done by sending its nominee on the Administrative Council-Petitioner

No.1. We do not agree with the contention of Respondent No.4 that the

college is in any violation of 2018 UGC Regulations for the reason that

no action is taken by UGC authorities for any violation and secondly as

observed by us herein-above, the college complies with all the

Regulations. Merely because the nomenclature of a particular body is

not the same as that specified in the Regulations, one cannot say that

54 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

2018 Regulations are violated. In any case, the appropriate authority to

allege any such violation would be the authority under 2018 UGC

Regulations and certainly not Respondent Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8.

42. Clause 2.7 of 2018 UGC Regulations defines "Governing

Body" to mean the Governing Body of the Autonomous College which

is different from the Trust Board or the Board of Management or the

Executive Committee or the Management Committee. Rule 3 prescribes

the role of Autonomous College and Clause 3.8 of the said Rule

provides that the Autonomous College would constitute their own

Governing Body, Academic Council, Board of Studies and Finance

Committee. We have already observed that the Governing Body in the

context of the facts before us would be Administrative Council. The

role of the State Government is provided in Rule 5 of the 2018 UGC

Regulations which is that the State Government would provide

nominee on the statutory bodies of the college within 30 days and will

continue to provide the same funds to the aided college as they were

providing before the conferment of autonomous status. The State

Government should further ensure that all sanctioned faculty positions

are filled on regular and ongoing basis. Rule 9 of the 2018 UGC

Regulations provides for monitoring of Autonomous Colleges by IQAC

cell. In our view, on the analysis of 2018 UGC Regulations, role of the

State Government is limited to providing nominee on the statutory

55 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

bodies and to provide funds and to ensure that faculty positions are

filled. The said regulation does not provide for any other role for the

State Government to come to a conclusion that there is violation of any

Rules of 2018 UGC Regulations.

43. We may observe that we have not been called upon to

adjudicate on 2023 UGC Regulations and therefore, we are not

expressing any opinion on the same.

44. Vide letter dated 19th September 2019, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2

requested Respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6 to appoint their nominee for the

period 2019 to 2022 on the Administrative Council Body of the College.

Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.5-University appointed its nominee

Mr. Pise. However, Respondent No.2 raised some queries which were

duly replied by the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter the

Administrative Council was constituted for the period 2019 to 2022.

The composition of the Administrative Council (Governing Body for the

said period) was as under :-

S.N. Name of the Member Highest Position Category
Qualification
1 Shri. Ajit Gulabchand B.Com. Chairman WHM Trust
2 Shri.Sanjayakaka Patil H.S.C. Member WHM Trust
3 Shri.Vijay Pusalkar B.Tech (Mech) Member MTE Society
4 Shri. V.N. Gupchup Ph.D. (Civil Engg.) Member MTES/WHM Trust*
5 Shri. R.P. Purohit MA.(Economics) Member MTES/WHM Trust*
6 Shri. C.N. Gandhi Dip.(Mech), MBA Member MTES/WHM Trust*
7 Dr. C.S.Verma Ph.D.(Composite Member Govt. of

56 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Materials) India_AICT_WRO
(EX-Officio)
8 Shri. Shrirang Kelkar Diploma Member AICTE-1
(Automobile)
9 Dr. Shivajirao Kadam Ph.D. (Che), MBA, Member AICTE_II (UGC
LLB nominee)
10 Dr. Abhay Wagh Ph.D. (Eln & Instr) Member Govt. of Maharashtra-
Offical (DTE-Ex-
Officio)
11 Dr. Ashok T. Pise Ph.D. (Mech) Member Shivaji University,
Kolhapur
12 Dr. P. G. Sonavane Ph.D. (Civil) I/C Ex-officio
Director&
Secretary
13 Dr. D. B. Kulkarni Ph.D. (Electronics) Invitee Faculty
Representative

(As per the resolution of the Board of Control of MTE Society dated

3.10.1961)

45. The above Constitution of Petitioner No.1 for the period 2019-

2022 is in accordance with 13.3(A) of 2018 UGC Regulations in as

much as members at Sr. Nos.1 to 6 are from Management Category and

also from category of educationist or industrialist. Sr. No.7 would also

fall within the category of educationist, Sr. Nos.8 to 10 are State

representatives, Sr. No.11 is representative of University, Sr. No.12 is an

ex-officio member and Sr. No.13 is a faculty representative.

46. In our view, the compliance of UGC Regulations have to been

examined in the context of the history since 1955 and if so examined

the argument that post 2018, Petitioner No.1 constituted by executive

instructions ceases to exist is to be rejected. In our view, the compliance

57 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

of UGC Regulations and the pre-2018 arrangement/understanding/

agreement/set-up between the Petitioners and the contesting

Respondents can co-exist in as much as the members of Administrative

Council can also be on the body of Governing Body and any additional

requirement of members as per clause 13.3A of 2018 can very well and

in fact has been accommodated in PI-Council body and, therefore, the

Governing Body as per 13.3A is nominated as 'Administrative Council' as

per 2018 UGC Regulations.

47. We may draw support from the decision of the Supreme Court

in the case of Dr. Premchandran Keezhoth & Anr. Vs. Chancellor Kannur

University1 to observe that if any decision is taken under any

Act/Regulation by a particular authority under the said Act/Regulation

then no other person or any superior authority can interfere with the

functioning of such statutory authority and if any decision is taken by a

person other than authorised person/authority then it would vitiated

the decision-making process for this Court to exercise its power of

judicial review. In the instant case, the Respondent No.1-State and

Respondent No.4-Society has sought to justify their action on the basis

of violation of 2018 UGC Regulations but the UGC authority has not

found any irregularity/violation of said Regulations, therefore the

impugned communication by Respondent No.1-State and Respondent

1 2023 SCC Online SC 1592

58 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

No.5-University is required to be set aside.

48. It is important to note that Respondent No.4's appointed its

nominee as approval by Petitioner No.3-Trust on the said Council which

is in accordance with the Resolution of Respondent No.4-Society dated

3rd October 1961. The constitution has representatives of Respondent

Nos.1 to 7 and the tenure of this body was upto 2022 and also in

accordance with 2018 UGC Regulations. In our view, the Respondents

having nominated their representatives on the Administrative Council

body for the period 2019 to 2022 now cannot contend that the said

body is not the governing body in accordance with 2018 Regulations,

and therefore, UGC Regulations are violated. The arguments of the

Respondents on this count is self contradictory and therefore it is

nothing short but would amount to approbate and reprobate at the

same time. The said constitution dated 5th December 2019 has not been

challenged by any party and therefore today they cannot argue

otherwise. The Respondent No.7-UGC has nominated its representative

on the Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council of the College for the

period 2022-2023 to 2026-2027 by appointing professor Mr. Arvind

Baalan. The UGC recognizes the Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council

as a governing body for 2018 and 2023 Regulations as evident from the

letter of Respondent No.7 dated 5th May 2022. Respondent No.2 has

also appointed its nominee Mr. D. V. Jadhav on Administrative Council

59 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

of the College vide letter dated 12 th May 2022 and this Administrative

Council is also understood by Respondent No.2 as appropriate

governing body of the College. It is important to note that after having

appointed Mr. Jadhav on the Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council, the

Respondent on 4th October 2022 addressed a letter to Respondent No.4

nominating Joint Director on the Board of Governors of the College in

accordance with clause 13.3 (A) of UGC 2018 Regulations. This was

done in pursuant to a letter of Respondent No.4 dated 22 nd September

2022. This letter is under challenge in the present Petition. In our view,

Respondent No.1 was not justified in nominating Joint Director on the

Board of Governor of the College by addressing a letter to Respondent

No.4-Society since Respondent No.4-Society was not in-charge of the

Governance of the College which was the fact admitted by Respondent

No.1 itself in the enquiry report and in its own judicial opinion and

furthermore as observed by us above, Respondent No.4-Society was

never in-charge of control and management of the college post 1956

and the governing body has to be of the college Petitioner No.2 and not

of the Society-Respondent No.4. There is no such body called Board of

Governors of the College and therefore, even on this count, no

cognizance of this letter dated 4th October 2022 should be taken. It is

not in dispute that the Respondents have been sending their nominees

on the Administrative Council-Petitioner No.1 of the college upto 5 th

60 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

September 2019 and even thereafter by some of the Respondents. The

dispute with regard to the nomination on Administrative Council-

Petitioner No.1 body and the body set-up by Respondent No.4-Board of

Governors was at the behest of various letters addressed by Respondent

No.4 to various other authorities which are impleaded as Respondents

in the present Petition. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have brought to the

notice of all the authorities the correct facts by letters dated 12 th/13th

October 2022 to the notice of the Respondents. In the light of above,

the nomination of Respondent No.5-University of Dr. Bhagshree Jadhav

on the Governing Body of the College vide letter dated 4 th November

2022 addressed to Respondent No.4-Society is also held to be illegal

since Respondent No.4 as observed by us herein-above has no control or

management rights over the college.

49. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 have challenged the locus of

Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council to file the present Petition. In

our view, the State themselves have recognized in the enquiry report

and Department of Law and Judiciary that Petitioner No.1 is a separate

entity/body formed for management and control of the college and the

said new committee has been reconstituted in November-2022 and is

functional and therefore the said submission of the Respondents is to be

rejected. The Writ Petition is filed by 4 Petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is the

Administrative Council claiming to be in control of Petitioner No.2-

61 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

College and which Petitioner No.4 is a member. Petitioner No.3 is a

Trust who has its nominee in the Petitioner No.2-Body. In our view,

certainly the locus of the Petitioners can not be doubted in filing unit.

We also do not accept the contention of Respondent No.4 that they are

entitled to set-up a Board of Governors for controlling and managing

affairs of the college as observed by us above from various

correspondence since 1955. Respondent No.4 has divested itself for all

times to come from the management and control of the affairs of the

college. By constituting a separate body namely Administrative Council,

which has also been accepted by the State Government and the Union

Government and various other arms of the Government in their enquiry

report, in the opinion of Law and Judiciary Department and by sending

their nominee on the said body. Therefore, in our view, the contention

of Respondent No.4 on this count also fails.

50. This Court on 2nd May 2023 had taken on record a

compilation of documents filed on behalf of the Petitioners as recorded

in the order of the Court. In the course of the hearing of this Petition

before this Bench, a query was raised by the Court who is collecting the

fees, filing the tax records accounting for the expenses etc. and the

Petitioners have brought to our notice the documents filed on 2 nd May

2023 in response thereto. Respondent No.4 has also filed the balance-

sheets in support of its contention that they are accounting the fees of

62 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

the college. The documents filed by the Petitioner and taken on record

on 2nd May 2023 has not been objected to by any of the parties except

intervenor in IA (St) No.12830 of 2023 being Governing body

constituted by Respondent No.4. The Intervenor has objected to this

compilation of documents on the ground that this would amount to the

Court entering and adjudicating upon the factual aspects which cannot

be undertaken by a Writ Court and further the Intervenor has been

served with the compilation of documents only in the course of the

hearing and therefore did not get chance to rebut the same. At the

outset, we may observe that the said Intervenor is a body constituted by

Respondent No.4. On 2nd May 2023, none for the Respondents including

Respondent No.4 had objected to this documents being taken on record

and relied upon by the Petitioner. Even today there is no objection to

this documents by any of the Respondents nor the same has been

rebutted by any of the Respondents. The Intervenor being a body

constituted by Respondent No.4-Society and Respondent No.4 not

objecting to the same at any point of time since May 2023, we do not

see any force in the contention of the Intervenor on the documents

being considered by the Court. It is also not the case of the Intervenor

that they are different from Respondent No.4-Society.

51. The Petitioners have relied upon the documents filed in the

compilation of documents and brought to our notice various documents

63 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

in support of its contention that it is the Petitioner No.1 who is in-

charge of and in control of the college. The documents in the

compilation are also relied upon to rebut what has been stated by

Respondent No.1 in their affidavit-in-reply dated 30 th November 2022

with regard to the constitution of Petitioner No.1 not being in

accordance with clause 13.3 (A) of the 2018 UGC Regulations. We have

perused these documents and on a perusal of the same, we have no

manner of doubt that till recently, it is the Petitioner No.1 who is in-

charge of and in control of the management and affairs of the college.

We now propose to examine these documents:

52. Briefly the documents which are annexed and its relevance on

the issue under consideration are as under :-

(a) Documents as recent as March-2023 addressed by the Petitioner

No.1 to its bankers for informing them about the signatories of the

bank account of the college. These letters are addressed by the

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 along with Resolution of the Petitioner

No.1. The bank account is in the name of the college. The extracts

of the minutes of the Petitioner No.1 with respect to signatories to

the operation of the bank account also shows that the bank

account of the college is operated by the authorized signatories of

Petitioner No.1.

64 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

(b) The Petitioners have filed audited accounts of the college for the

financial years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22. These accounts are

signed by the Chairman and other members of the Administrative

Council-Petitioner No.1. The accounts shows the fees collected

from students and expenses in running the college. The accounts

are also signed by the Accounts Officer and Director of Respondent

No.1. The balance-sheet of Petitioner No.2-college is also prepared

and audited and signed by the Chairman of Petitioner No.1. The

capital grants receipts are accounted for in these accounts and

various assets and liabilities of the college is recorded therein. The

statutory auditor of the college has given a certificate certifying the

PAN number, TAN number and GSTIN number under the Income

Tax Act and GST Act of the college. It further certifies that the

college has filed its return of income under the said PAN in the

status of Association of Persons (AOP being Petitioner No.1) and

the Petitioner is regularly filing its TDS return. We have perused

the income tax return acknowledgment form for the assessment

year 2016-17 to 2022-23 and same are digitally signed by the

authorized signatory of Petitioner No.1. The registration certificate

under the GST Act is also filed in the compilation of documents. In

our view, the accounts, balance-sheets, income tax return etc. filed

by Petitioner No.1 clearly demonstrates that the finances on

65 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

account of fees expenses, grants are managed and controlled by

Petitioner No.1 and same is also accepted by the Central Revenue

Authorities under the Income Tax Act and GST Act and Respondent

No.1 is also part of said State GST Act.

account for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04 income and expenditure

account for the year ended 31st March 2003 but there is no income

from "fee" or any "expenses" for running the college in the

balance-sheet of Respondent No.4 and as on 31 st March 2004. A

loan is shown to Petitioner No.2-college. This itself indicates that

Respondent No.4 has accepted the separate entity status of the

college. In the said balance-sheet there is also a contra entry

recorded under the head of "W.C. of Engineering" amounting to

Rs.4,22,22,765/-. If the contention of Respondent No.4 that they

are collecting the "fees" is to be accepted then we fail to

understand that how the fees are not shown in the Income and

Expenditure account and why the need for passing contra entry.

Respondent No.4 themselves in the letter to the Income Tax

Department dated 21st March 2014 have accepted that since they

have not received the accounts of the college and, therefore, same

are not incorporated in the society's account. If that be so then we

fail to understand how Respondent No.4 can contend that fees are

66 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

received and accounted by them. We, therefore, have no doubt

that the fees received from the students and the expenses incurred

in running the college are accounted by a separate body being

Petitioner No.1 in its status of AOP and this indicates that the

Petitioner No.1 is running and is in-charge of the college and not

Respondent No.4-Society.

Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 for the period 2013 to 2023

to show that the Director of the college is appointed by a Selection

Committee of which the representatives of the Respondents are

members. The appointment letters of the teaching staff is also

issued by Petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The appointment of the staff by

Petitioner No.1 are approved by Respondent No.5-University and

also by Respondent No.2-Directorate of Technical Education. All

these correspondences between the Petitioner and Respondents

shows that the appointment of the staff of the college is done by

Petitioner No.1 and also that the teachers and non-teaching staff

are appointed by the Council and therefore the objection raised by

Respondent No.1 in its affidavit-in-reply as to the constitution of

the Petitioner No.1 not being in accordance with UGC Regulations

is also incorrect.

67 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

(d) Various documents are filed to show that the staff is appointed by

Petitioner No.1 and same has been approved by Respondent No.2.

The performance appraisal form are addressed by Petitioner No.1

to Respondent No.2 and specimen performance appraisal report

from 2006-2007 to 2019-2020 are enclosed.

(e) Respondent No.5-University has approved vide letter dated 29 th

November 2022 roster for various teaching staff and the encloser

to that is signed by the Petitioner No.1. The correspondences

between the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.5-University from

2003 to 2023 indicates that Respondent No.5 have approved and

recognized Petitioner No.1 as a body in-charge of the control and

management of the college and therefore the action of Respondent

No.5-University in nominating its representative on body

constituted by Respondent No.4-Society is bad.

(f) Minutes of the meeting of the Petitioner No.1 are also filed in the

compilation of documents which clearly demonstrates that it is the

Petitioner No.1 who is running the college.

(g) The correspondences between Respondent No.4-Society and

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 whereby Respondent No.4 have sought the

annual report and audit report of the college itself shows that the

college is run by Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and not Respondent No.4-

Society.

68 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

(h) Various documents including annual report of the college clearly

demonstrates that the Respondents have recognized Petitioner

No.1 has a body who is in-charge of and in control of the college.

53. The compilation of documents running into more than 400

pages clearly supports the case of the Petitioner that it is the Petitioner

No.1 who is in-charge of and in control of the college and same has

accepted by the Respondents in various correspondences. It is however

clarified that our conclusions are not drawn only on the basis of the

aforesaid documents but are based on what has been discussed in the

foregoing paragraphs.

54. We have not been shown any document by Intervenor or

Respondent No.4 that even post 2012 till today they are running the

College so as to stake their claim to form the governing body by alleging

that Petitioner No.1-Council is in Violation of 2012 State Government

Resolution or 2018 UGC Regulations.

55. It is the contention of Respondent Nos.1 and 4 that

Petitioner's existence has come to an end on issue of Government

Resolution dated 23rd October 2012, whereby, Respondent No.1-State in

supersession of its earlier G.R.s of 2002-2004 had prescribed rules for

governing autonomous colleges. In our view, this may not be correct, in

as much as Respondent Nos.1 and 4 themselves have post 2012

69 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

nominated their representatives on Petitioner No.1-Administrative

Council Body cannot contend now after having already appointed their

representatives post 2012 on Administrative Council Body that such a

body did not exist post 23rd October 2012 G.R. Secondly, the G.R. of

23rd October 2012 supersedes earlier G.R.s of 19 th July 2002 and 31st

March 2004. However, this has to be read in the context of the present

facts by tracing the same to the history of birth of Petitioner No.1 since

1955, which we have already analysed above and, therefore, the

Government resolutions issued are to be read in the context of the

background leading to the formation of Petitioner No.1 to which

Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 were parties. Even otherwise, we do not

find any ground to hold that the Government Resolution dated 23 rd

October 2012 has not been complied with by the Petitioner No.1.

Firstly, Respondent No.1 has never in the past taken any action against

the Petitioner No.1 for not following the G.R. of 23 rd October 2012. The

G.R. of 2012 states in paragraph 5B that autonomous colleges should

have the authorities specified from Serial Nos.1 to 12. In our view,

Petitioner No.2 had all these authorities which are specified in

paragraph 5B, namely; trust, board of management, academic council,

board of studies, finance committee, grievance appeal committee,

examination committee library committee, student committee, etc. This

is evident from the annual reports of the Petitioner No.2-College which

70 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

is to be found in the compilation of documents, wherein there is a

reference to all these committees and trusts required as per paragraph

5B.

56. The Respondent No.4 has submitted that the authority Board

of Society as per paragraph 7 of 2012 G.R. shall take decision in

consultation with State Government on the matters specified therein.

There is no dispute on paragraph 7 of the said G.R. that Board of

Society shall take decision in consultation with State Government, but

neither Respondent No.1 nor Respondent No.4 have specified as to

which of the decision by Petitioner No.1 has been taken which is in

violation of the paragraph 7 of the said G.R. As per paragraph 5B, one

of the authority of autonomous college should be board of society or

trust. If Respondent No.4 is treated as a trust for the purpose of

paragraph 5.B.1 of 2012 G.R., then the Respondent No.4 itself is to be

hold responsible, if there is any violation of paragraph 7 of 2012 G.R.

57. Be that as it may, in our view, the contention of Respondent

Nos.1 and 4 by relying on paragraph 7 of 2012 G.R. does not survive in

view of our above findings and on account of subsequent UGC

Regulations. As per paragraph 9 of 2012 G.R., in the board of

management, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary of Technical Education

and Director of Technical Education shall attend all meetings of Board

of Management of these institutes as special invitees. The Respondent

71 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Nos.1, 2 and 3, who are State Government and Director of Technical

Education have sent their representatives on Administrative Council-

Petitioner No.1 from time to time and, therefore, even on this count, the

contention of Respondent No.1 is to be rejected, insofar as 2012 G.R. is

concerned. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are justified in relying on

paragraph 12 of 2012 G.R. which states that governing structure of

partially aided institute shall be in accordance with UGC guidelines. The

Petitioner has been granted autonomous status for the the period 2011-

12 and this could be only on the basis that the governing structure of

the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is in accordance with the UGC guidelines.

The counsel for Respondent No.7 has not pointed out that the

governing structure of Petitioner No.2 is not in accordance with UGC

guidelines. It is relevant to note that 2012 Government Resolution does

not give any power to nominate its representative on the body of

Respondent No.4-Society since said Government Resolution has already

been superseeded by UGC Regulations. Therefore, on this count also,

the contentions of Respondent Nos.1 and 4, insofar as with regard to

2012 G.R. is concerned is to be rejected.

58. The Respondent No.4 relied upon its minutes of Annual

General Meeting dated 17th November 2010 and contended that

Petitioner No.1 has been superseded by this resolution of Respondent

No.4 and, therefore, even on this count, the Petitioner No.1 ceases to

72 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

exist. We do not agree with this contention inasmuch as in this very

meeting, Respondent No.4 nominated its 4 representatives on Petitioner

No.1-Body for the period 2010 to 2013 and this can be only on the

premise that Petitioner No.1 existed and, therefore Respondent No.4

nominated its members thereon. The said resolution further states that

they are disapproving the names of persons illegally nominated by other

unauthorised institute on Petitioner No.1-Body in the quota provided for

Respondent No.4-Society. This resolution further resolves that it

supersedes all resolutions made earlier by Board of Control including

resolution dated 3rd October 1961 in this regard and also what is

contrary to the interest of Respondent No.4-Society. In our view,

Respondent No.4 cannot take this decision unilaterally, since by

resolution dated 3rd October 1961, they themselves have stated that the

resolution is irrevocable and same shall not be altered, amended or

modified without the prior approval and consent of Petitioner No.1.

This resolution of 3rd October 1961 also records that representative of

Respondent No.4 would be approved by Petitioner No.3 and the

Respondent No.4 nominees were sitting on Petitioner No.1-Council for

the period 2019 to 2022. In our view, after examining the history of

Petitioner No.1 which was the joint decision of Respondent No.1,

Respondent No.4, Petitioner No.3, Government of India and other

statutory authorities even after this resolution of 2010, Respondent

73 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

No.4 did nominate their representative on Petitioner No.1's body and,

therefore, one cannot contend that by virtue of this resolution, the

existence of Petitioner No.1 has come to an end.

59. The only ground taken by Respondent No.1 in opposing the

Writ Petition as per their affidavit-in-reply dated 30 th November 2022 is

that since Clause 13.3 (A) of 2018 UGC Regulations were not complied

with by Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, they had issued the impugned

communication appointing their nominees on the Governing Body of

Respondent No.4. We have already given our findings on 2018 UGC

Regulations above wherein we have observed that the Authority under

2018 UGC Regulations has not found any violation of the said

Regulations nor Respondent No.7 UGC have stated so in the affidavit-in-

reply filed in the present petition. Therefore, Respondent No.1 cannot

take upon itself a task of coming to a conclusion that there is any

violation of 2018 UGC Regulations to justify their action in issuing the

impugned communication appointing their nominees on the Governing

Body of Respondent No.4. In any view of the matter, we have already

observed that there is no violation of any 2018 UGC Regulations by

Petitioner No.1 and therefore, on this count also the objection raised by

Respondent No.1 in their affidavit-in-reply does not survive.

Respondent No.1 has annexed a letter dated 22nd September 2022

issued by Respondent No.4 to Respondent No.2 in which Respondent

74 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

No.4-Society has stated the constitution of Governing Board. The said

constitution referred to in the said letter does not have any

representatives of teachers, UGC, State Government, University and

therefore, even on this count, the Governing Body referred to in the said

communication on the basis of which Respondent No.1 has issued the

impugned communication nominating their representatives on the

Governing Board formed by Respondent No.4 is not in accordance with

the UGC Regulations. We may observe that the primary challenge in the

present Writ Petition is the action of Respondent No.1 in issuing

communication appointing its nominees on the Governing Board of

Respondent No.4. Therefore, it was expected that Respondent No.1

would justify the same but only justification which is given in the

affidavit-in-reply is non compliance of 2018 UGC Regulations and

nothing further. The affidavit-in-reply does not consider any of past

history which we have analyzed and to which Respondent No.1 was

always a party. In the absence of any reply on the acts and stand of

Respondent No.1 since 1955, today Respondent No.1 cannot take

contrary stand in the garb of entering 2018 UGC Regulations to justify

its impugned action.

60. Respondent No.7 UGC has filed their reply. Respondent No.7

has admitted that the autonomous status of Petitioner No.2-College is

valid even today. The reply only reproduced certain Rules and

75 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Regulations of 2018 which are general in nature without any statement

that Petitioner No.2 is not in compliance thereof. Admittedly nothing

has been shown to us that the Authority under UGC Regulations has

taken any action against Petitioner No.2 for any violation of the said

Regulations. Therefore, in the absence of the same and Respondent

No.7-UGC nominating its representatives on Petitioner No.1-Body, there

cannot be any challenge to the constitution of Petitioner No.1 on the

ground that the same is in violation of 2018 UGC Regulations.

Respondent No.7-UGC has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court

in case of Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government,

Information and Tourism Department and Ors.2 and in case of

Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. Vs. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors. 3 However,

these decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case before

us and therefore, the same are not discussed.

61. Respondent No.7-UGC has taken a fair stand that it neither

supports the Petitioners nor the Respondents but its concerns is

academic excellence for which it is constituted.

62. It is also important to note that Respondent No.7-UGC vide its

letter dated 7th February 2022 addressed to Respondent No.5-University

has stated that the autonomous status of "Walchand College of

2 (2009) 4 SCC 590
3 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1473

76 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

Engineering" has been extended upto 2026-2027 including ex-post

facto approval for the period 2019-2020 to 2021-2022 as per the

provisions of Clause 3.13 and Clause 6.3 of the UGC Regulations dated

12th February 2018. This letter clearly shows that Petitioner No.2 is in

compliance with 2018 UGC Regulations and therefore, the submission

of Respondent Nos.1 and 4 alleging that on account of violation of 2018

UGC Regulations, the Governing Body is formed by Respondent No.4

and, therefore, the action of Respondent No.1 in issuing the impugned

communication is justified is to be rejected.

63. Respondent No.5-University in its reply has stated that vide

letter dated 27th November 2015 and 19th June 2019, they had

nominated their nominees on Petitioner No.1-Body for a period of 3

years i.e. upto 2022. Therefore, Respondent No.5 also accepts that

constitution of Petitioner No.1 is in accordance with all the relevant

Rules and Regulations governing Petitioner No.2 and therefore, no such

objection in constitution of Petitioner No.1 was taken. Thereafter, in

September 2022, the Respondent No.5-University appointed its

nominees on the Governing Board of Respondent No.4-Society vide

letter dated 4th November 2022. Respondent No.5 in the reply has

stated that it has appointed its nominees on the Governing Board of the

College and the same was intimated to the President of Respondent

No.4. Respondent No.5 has not responded to the letter of the Petitioner

77 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

dated 12th October 2022 which cautioned about various letters written

by Respondent Nos.4 and 8 to various authorities since the matter was

pending before this Court. In our view, Respondent No.5-University

having recognised Petitioner No.1-Council upto 2022 was not justified

in issuing letter dated 4th November 2022 without giving any

jurisdiction nor anything is pleaded before us.

64. We have already observed above that Petitioner No.1 is in-

charge and control of Management and Administration of Petitioner

No.2-College and there being no violation of 2018 UGC Regulations,

Respondent No.5 ought to have nominated its nominees on Petitioner

No.1.

65. The counsel for the Respondent No.8 has submitted that no

reliefs have been claimed against him and the Petitioners are not

justified in making him a party in his personal capacity. The Petitioners

have submitted that Respondent No.8 is making attempt to gain control

over the Petitioner No.2-College and there are personal allegations

against him and therefore he has been made a party. We may observe

that we are not adjudicating any issue between the Petitioners and

Respondent No.8 and therefore we refrain from making any comments

on this issue.

78 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

66. The Petitioners have annexed letters from Respondent Nos.1,

2, 5, 6 and 7 for the periods 2001 to 2022, as sample copies to

demonstrate that these Respondents have nominated their

representative on Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council of Petitioner

No.2. These letters have not been disputed by the Respondents, which

further shows that the impugned action of Respondent No.1 in

nominating its representatives on Governing Board of Respondent No.4

is not justified. There is no rebuttal to the statement on affidavit made

by the Petitioner that for the years 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022 the

teachers have been represented on Administrative Council Body-

Petitioner No.1. Therefore, the argument of contesting Respondent

Nos.1 and 4 that the teachers are not represented as per the UGC

Regulations is also without any basis. The Resolution appointing the

teachers on Administrative Council-Petitioner No.1 is also filed along

with this petition. The Petitioner in para 6 of the Rejoinder have stated

its composition and the expertise which these representative in their

capacity have been nominated. On a perusal of the same, the Petitioner

No.1 is stated to be constituted of Educationist, Expert Structural

Engineering, Industrialist, Teachers etc. and therefore there does not

appear to be any defect in the constitution of Petitioner No.1 as alleged

by Respondent Nos.1 and 4 in their submissions before us.

79 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

67. In view of our detailed discussion and reasoning above, we

pass the following order :-

ORDER

(i) The impugned communication dated 4th October 2022 addressed by Respondent No.1-State to Respondent No.4-Society is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The impugned communication dated 4 th November 2022 addressed by Respondent No.5-University to Respondent No.4-Society is quashed and set aside.

(iii) The Petitioner No.1 is held to be in-charge and control of the management of the Petitioner No.2-College.

(iv) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute.

(v) In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, the Interim Application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.

Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016

67. The issue raised in Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 is similar to that raised in Writ Petition No.14369 of 2022. The only difference being that the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 is contesting Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.14369 of 2022 and the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.14369 of 2022 is the intervenor in Writ Petition 80 of 82 ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 ::: Tauseef 10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc No.13025 of 2016. The prayers in both the petitions are similar inasmuch as the Petitioner's in each Writ Petition seek to contend that they are in control and management of the affairs of "Walchand College of Engineering" and therefore, statutory and government bodies should send their nominees the bodies respectively formed by the Petitioner in each of these petitions.

68. The learned counsel for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 submitted that the decision in Writ Petition No.14369 of 2022 would also govern Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 and therefore, there is no need for further hearing of Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 or to give independent reasoning. The intervenor in Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 who are the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.14369 of 2022 and all other parties are agreeable to this suggestion.

69. However, Respondent No.9 in Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 submitted that they are support the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.14369 of 2022 but they have disputes with the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 and therefore, this Court should not express any opinion on the dispute between the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 and Respondent No.9 in the said petition. We accept the said submission of Respondent No.9.





                                     81 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024                    ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::
  Tauseef                                                       10-WP.14369.2022-J.doc

70. In view of the above statements of the parties and in the light of our reasoning in Writ Petition No.14369 of 2022, the Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 is dismissed and therefore Interim Application No.1057 of 2020 does not survive and the same is disposed of. Rule stands discharged in Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016. No order as to costs.

[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.]

71. At this stage, Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.14369 of 2022 and Petitioner in Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 prayed for stay of operation of this judgment for a period of four weeks.

72. We are not inclined to accept the said request since there was no interim order in favour of Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.14369 of 2022. Furthermore, in Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016, the interim prayer sought for by Respondent No.4 herein (Petitioner therein) was refused. Therefore no case is made out for stay of the judgment and request is rejected.

 [JITENDRA JAIN, J.]                               [A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.]




                                     82 of 82
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2024                    ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 08:06:58 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court