Shri Balaji Shikshan Prasarak ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4631 Bom

                                                                  W.P.No.7027/2017
                                       1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 7027 OF 2017

Shri Balaji Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Gangakhed, Taluka
Gangakhed, District Parbhani,
through its Secretary,
Amruta w/o Gangadhar Mundhe,
Age 27 years, Occu. Household,
C/o Sai Institute of Engineering
and Technology, Chauka Bilda,
Ajintha road, Taluka Fulambri,
District Aurangabad                                      .. Petitioner

        Versus

1.      The State of Maharashtra,
        through Director of Technical
        Education, The office of Director
        of Technical Education,
        (Maharashtra), 3, Mahapalika
        Marg, Mumbai 400 001.

2.      The Joint Director of Technical
        Education, Marathwada region,
        Regional Office,
        Railway Station road, Osmanpura,
        Aurangabad

3.      The Registrar/In charge Officer,
        Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
        Marathwada University,
        Aurangabad                                       .. Respondents

Mr V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel i/b Mr B.R. Kedar, Advocate for petitioner Mr M.B. Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 and 2 Mr S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent no.3

CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND A.M. DHAVALE, JJ

DATE : 18th July 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M. Borde, J.)

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties,

heard finally at the stage of admission.

W.P.No.7027/2017

2. The petitioner - institution, by way of presenting the instant

petition is objecting to the communication dated 20 th/23rd May 2017,

annexed at Exh.`E' as well as the notice issued by the authorised in-

charge Officer dated 23rd May 2017 i.e. the Registrar, in-charge

Officer, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad

cancelling the affiliation of the college operated by the petitioner

from the academic year 2017-2018. The petitioner is also objecting to

the resolutions passed by the Academic Council and Management

Council dated 20th June 2017 and 27th June 2017 and the actions taken

by the respondents pursuant to such resolutions.

3. The petitioner has been granted permission to run Sai Institute

of Engineering and Technology with intake of 300 students for the

year 2011. It is informed that at present there are approximately 1200

students taking education at the college. The university has also

granted affiliation initially and continuation of affiliation has also been

granted every year till 2016-2017. The university has also approved

the intake of students in the technical institute operated by the

petitioner. As a result of certain unfortunate instances relating to

malpractice at examination committee by the students of second year

Civil Engineering course on 16th May and 17th May 2017, punitive

action has been taken against the college including the registration of

Crime No.75/2017 against 27 students and some of the employees of

the college. The Principal of the college transmitted a communication

to the Registrar of university informing non-involvement of the

management and the college in the instances of malpractice at

examination. The petitioner contends that on 20 th/23rd May 2017,

W.P.No.7027/2017

the in-charge Officer transmitted a communication to the petitioner

informing that since criminal proceedings are initiated against the

students and some of the employees of the college, until conclusion of

those criminal proceedings, the technical institution operated by the

petitioner shall not admit students and the students already admitted

and taking instructions at the college shall be accommodated in other

technical institution. It has also been informed that name of the

petitioner-institute shall be included in the blacklist maintained for the

purpose. The petitioner-institute has been called upon to tender reply

by issuing a notice on the same day, i.e. 23 rd May 2017 issued by in-

charge Officer calling upon to explain as to why the affiliation granted

by the university shall not be revoked. The petitioner is called upon to

tender reply within a period of thirty days from the date of

communication. The petitioner contends that the institute has

tendered reply to the show-cause notice. In the meanwhile, the

instant petition came to be presented and this Court, by virtue of the

order dated 9th June 2017, permitted the petitioner to file/make

representation/reply to the show-cause notice within three days from

the date of the order and it was directed to the respondent no.3-

university to deal with the same within seven days thereafter. It is

further directed that no coercive steps be taken by the respondents

based upon the impugned communication dated 23 rd May 2017. It is

pointed out by the petitioner that the respondent no.3-university in

the meanwhile sent a local inspection committee on 16 th June 2017

and considering the report of the said committee as well as the report

by fact finding committee and the Dean's committee,

recommendation was made not to continue the affiliation of the

W.P.No.7027/2017

college and not to permit the institute to admit the students. On the

basis of resolutions adopted by the Dean's committee as well as the

academic council, the Vice Chancellor approved the action of

withdrawal of affiliation of the technical institution.

4. The petitioner contends that action taken by the respondent

no.3-university is violative of Section 12 and 120 of the Maharashtra

Public University Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for

brevity). Section 12, sub-section 7 of the Act vests emergency powers

on the Vice Chancellor. It is provided in Sub-section 7 of Section 12

of the Act that if there are reasonable grounds for the Vice-

Chancellor to believe that there is an emergency which requires

immediate action to be taken, or if any action is required to be taken

in the interest of the university, he shall take such action, as he thinks

necessary, and shall at the earliest opportunity, report in writing the

grounds for his belief that there was an emergency, and the action

taken by him, to such authority or body as shall, in the ordinary

course, have dealt with the matter. It is contended by the petitioner

that the communication issued on 20th/23 rd May 2017 is violative of

principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity has been

given to the institution to show-cause in respect of the adverse action

taken by the university. It is further contended that the action

taken on 20th/23rd May 2017 directing the petitioner not to admit

students and further issuing the directions to accommodate the

students in other technical institutions as well as inserting name of

the technical institute operated by the petitioner in the blacklist is

also not in conformity of Sub-section 7 of Section 12 of the Act. It is

W.P.No.7027/2017

informed that there is nothing in the communication that the action

has been authorised by the Vice Chancellor or that the Vice

Chancellor, after taking the action has communicated the grounds for

his belief that there is emergency, to the authority ordinarily dealing

with the matter. Admittedly, the Vice Chancellor has not

communicated the ground for his belief that there is emergency to

any of the authority including academic committee or the Dean's

committee. It is also informed that there is no blacklist contemplated

under the Act nor such blacklist has been maintained by the

university. The action taken in view of the communicated dated 23 rd

May 2017 is bad in law for the reason that the adverse action has

been taken in breach of principles of natural justice and action is also

violative of provision of Sub-section 7 of Section 12 of the Act.

5. It is contended that the notice dated 23 rd May 2017 is also bad

in law since the in-charge Officer has no authority to issue such

notice. It is pointed out that the Dean's committee shall have the

authority to initiate action in accordance with the provisions of Section

120 of the Act. It is pointed out that the Dean's committee has not

issued the notice and as such, action based upon the notice dated 23 rd

May 2017 is bad in law. It is contended on behalf of the university that

the Dean's committee has been constituted on 24 th May 2017 and on

the date of initiation of the action i.e. transmission of the notice, the

Dean's committee was not in existence. In absence of Dean's

committee, the action initiated at the instance of Vice Chancellor

cannot be said to be violative of the Act. It is further pointed out that

immediately after issuance of notice, the petitioner approached this

W.P.No.7027/2017

Court challenging the said notice and there was hardly any scope for

the Vice Chancellor to take further action. This Court permitted the

petitioner to tender the reply within three days and further issued

directions to the university to take steps on consideration of reply

within seven days from the date of tender of reply. It is pointed out

that the university acted in pursuance to the directions issued by this

Court and has continued the further proceedings. It has even not

been demonstrated by the petitioner any prejudice caused as a result

of non-observance of certain formalities prescribed in sub-section 7 of

Section 12 of the Act for failure to record and transmit the reasons to

the Dean's committee as well as academic committee. It is contended

that the Dean's committee and academic committee adopted the

resolution, which was transmitted to the Vice Chancellor who has

taken action of cancellation of affiliation.

6. The petitioner contends that the reports of the Dean's

committee as well as local inspection committee and the fact finding

committee were not supplied to the petitioner and the action taken on

the basis of the material, which is considered to be adverse to the

petitioner without supplying the said material to the petitioner or

extending opportunity to show-cause in respect of such material is in

breach of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner is justified

in saying that the impugned action taken in pursuance to the notice

based upon consideration of three reports referred to above which has

been approved by the Vice Chancellor, being in breach of observance

of principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed and set aside.

W.P.No.7027/2017

7. The learned Counsel appearing for university has pointed out

that the petitioner is in receipt of all the reports referred to above and

it can very well make representation in respect of those reports, which

can be reconsidered by the Vice Chancellor. He also fairly concedes

that the Dean's committee would also give an opportunity to the

petitioner and thereafter would proceed to take decision in pursuance

to the provisions of Section 120 of the Act.

8. Considering the submissions made, we are of the view that the

ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is extended an

opportunity to tender its detailed reply on consideration of the reports

to the Dean's committee, explaining the allegations levelled against

the petitioner, as expeditiously as possibly, preferably within one

week from today. On receipt of reply of the petitioner, the Dean's

committee shall extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-

institution and may take appropriate action within a period of fifteen

days from the date of receipt of the reply. It would be open for the

respondent no.3-university to adopt further course of action i.e.

consideration of report of Dean's committee and academic council and

recommendation of the Dean's committee and academic council by

the Vice Chancellor and taking consequential action, if any, in the

facts and circumstances. The further adverse action taken against the

petitioner of cancellation of affiliation, and its approval by the Vice

Chancellor is quashed and set aside. There arises no question of

blacklisting of the petitioner-institute since there is no such procedure

or practice prevailing in the university. The petitioner-institute,

however, shall not be permitted to admit the students until the inquiry

W.P.No.7027/2017

proceedings are concluded by the university and subject thereto.. The

communication dated 20th/23rd May 2017 made by respondent no.3-

university annexed at Exh.'E' stands quashed.

9. Rule made absolute to the extent, specified above. No costs.

       ( A.M. DHAVALE, J.)                   ( R.M. BORDE, J.)




vvr