Allahabad High Court
C/M Krishna Gopal Mahavidyalaya And ... vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 4 February, 2020
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3803 of 2020 Petitioner :- C/M Krishna Gopal Mahavidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Garg Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Laxmi Kant Tripathi,Vinay Sharma Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
An order passed by the Vice Chancellor of the Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, dated 16.12.2019 is assailed in this petition, whereby recognition granted to the petitioner's educational institution in the year 1996 has been withdrawn. Apart from other grounds taken, it is asserted that the Vice Chancellor has no jurisdiction to pass this order inasmuch it is the Executive Council in terms of Section 37 (8) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 which alone has the jurisdiction to withdraw recognition.
A perusal of the record would go to show that an earlier decision of withdrawl of recognition against the same institution was brought before this Court in Writ Petition No. 34437 of 2019 which has been allowed vide following orders passed on 24.10.2019:-
"Heard Sri Anil Kishor Sharma, learned counsel assisted by Sri K.M. Garg, for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 5, Sri L.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that they do not want to file counter affidavit in the writ petition at this stage, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of.
The petitioner is a committee of management of Krishna Gopal Mahavidalaya Nagaina, District Bijnor and has assailed the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Vice Chancellor whereby, the Vice Chancellor has withdrawn the affiliation granted to the petitioners to run B.A. and B.Com. courses.
According to the petitioners, they are running a college since 1996 and have been granted temporary affiliation in the year 1996 and permanent affiliation in the year 2006. Since the date of grant of affiliation, petitioners are running the college continuously till date.
A complaint with regard to possession of the land over which the college is constructed has been raised by the respondent no.4 on the ground that the land is owned by Sri Krishna Goshala (registered), Nagina District Bijnor registered under the Society Registration Act and has been illegally encroached upon by the college. On the complaint of respondent no.4, Vice Chancellor constituted a committee to conduct an enquiry with regard to allegations made by respondent no.4 in the complaint.
The Committee sought report from the District Magistrate with regard to title of land, and after report was submitted by the District Magistrate, the Committee called for objections from petitioner and further directed the petitioner to produce documents relating to the possession of college over the land in dispute. The Committee, thereafter, submitted a report to the Executive Council of the University.
The Executive Council, thereafter, relying upon the report of the enquiry committee and report of the District Magistrate took a decision for withdrawal of affiliation of the petitioner's college which has been communicated by the Registrar by order dated 04.10.2019 impugned in the present writ petition.
Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that neither the enquiry report of the District Magistrate nor the report of the enquiry committee was supplied to the petitioner and no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the executive council before passing the impugned order and, therefore, the decision of executive council for withdrawal of affiliation is not sustainable. He further contends that in fact, there is no order except the order passed by the Registrar dated 04/01.10.2019 withdrawing the affiliation of the college on record due to which he could not challenge the order of the Executive Council.
He further submits that perusal of order impugned also reflects that no enquiry report of the committee as well as District Magistrate has been supplied to the petitioner and further, no reason has been given in the order impugned which led to the Executive Council or Registrar to come to the conclusion that possession of the petitioner over the land in question is illegal and thus, withdrawal of affiliation on the said ground is not sustainable.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.4 contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending. The submission is that as the possession of the petitioner is illegal over the land in dispute, therefore, the matter may be remitted to the executive council to decide the dispute afresh.
A perusal of order impugned in the writ petition clearly reflects that petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing before passing the same. Further, in view of averments made by the petitioner in paragraphs 62 to 64 wherein a categorical assertion has been made that the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry committee constituted by executive council as well as District Magistrate was not supplied to the petitioner, the order impugned is not sustainable being in-violation of principle of natural justice.
Thus, for the reasons given above, the order dated 04/01.10.2019 is set aside and matter is remitted back to the executive council to decide the dispute afresh after giving proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent no.4 and all the concerned parties by reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed subject to observations made above."
A perusal of the aforesaid order would go to show that after setting aside the order dated 1/4.10.2019, the matter has been remitted back to the Executive Council to decide the dispute afresh, in light of the observations contained in the order dated 24.10.2019. Neither under the aforesaid order of this Court dated 24.10.2019 nor in the enabling provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 i.e. Section 37 (2) and (8) read with the Statute of the University, such a decision could be taken by the Vice Chancellor. It is admitted on record that the Executive Council has not passed any order so far. It was not open for the Vice Chancellor of the University to have passed an order withdrawing recognition and then direct the Executive Council to be informed about the development taken. The order impugned, therefore, is liable to be quashed on this ground alone, for lack of jurisdiction.
Writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. Order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 16.12.2019 stands quashed. The matter stands remitted to the Executive Council for taking appropriate decision in light of the order passed on 24.10.2019 in Writ Petition No. 34437 of 2019, within a period of six weeks from today.
Order Date :- 4.2.2020 n.u.