Indian Council Of Agricultural ... vs Veterinary Council Of India
1996 Latest Caselaw 680 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.

(1) Veterinary Council of India and Indian Council of Agricultural Research, the two 'States' or instrumentalities of the State (within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India) are fighting a legal battle. It is unfortunate to note the failure on the part of the Central Government to intervene and put its foot down effectively and at an appropriate stage so as to hold the two away from legal arena. A public duty to choose and select the best of candidates on the basis of all India merit to occupy 15% seats in veterinary colleges spread through out the country is being mis construed and misunderstood as a power to rule the allotment of 15% all India quota seats. In the power crazy world, the two 'States' are no exception; both are striving to wield the power.

(2) The veterinary Council of India (hereinafter Vci, for short) has been established under Section 3 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (hereinafter Vc Act, for short). The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter I car, for short) has been judicially recognised as an 'other authority' by the highest court of the land in P.K. Ramchandra Iyer VS. Union of India,, .

(3) On 22.4.96, the Vci filed a suit for declaration and permanent preventive injunction impleading I car as the defendant, registered as Civil Suit No-1047/96 on the Original Side of the High Court of Delhi. A prayer for ad-interim injunction was also made. By order dated 5.6.96 a learned Single Judge of this Court has held as under :- "I am of the opinion that it is the plaintiff who is empowered to hold the examination on all India basis in respect of 15% of the total number of seats of each Veterinary College in the State to which the Act applies. Accordingly, till further orders, the defendant is restrained from conducting All India Common Entrance Examination for filling up 15% of total number of seats in the State Agricultural Universities."

The above said order is subject matter of FAO(OS) 231/96 filed by I car on 6.6.96..

(4) On 6.6.96 Cwp 2334/96 has also been filed by the I car impleading Vci as respondent seeking mainly the relief of declaring/quashing Regulation 5(8) of the Indian Veterinary Council of India (Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education) Degree Courses (BVSc and AH) Regulations, 1993 as illegal invalid ab initio void and as such ultra vires the Constitution. The Vci is also sought to be restrained from declaring the results of the All India Entrance Examination regarding 15% of the total number of seats of each Veterinary College.

(5) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal and the writ petition have been heard together.

(6) We may now notice in brief the respective cases of the two parties. It is common ground that inspiration to hold such All India Entrance Examinations was drawn from the two decisions of the Supreme Court entitled Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad & Ors, reported respectively as and Air 1986 Sc 1877. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court laid down principles which required 15% of the seats in the Medical Colleges to be filled up by one all India entrance examination to be held by the Government of India or the Indian Medical Council. The same principle is sought to be borrowed and applied to the field of veterinary education. To that extent there is no controversy; rather the idea is welcome. However, what has transpired thereafter is a matter of concern. We proceed to briefly state the respective cases of the two authorities. Case Of The Veterinary Council Of India

(7) The Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 was passed with following object as set out in its Preamble :- AN Act to regulate veterinary practice and to provide, for that purpose, for the establishment of a Veterinary Council of India and State Veterinary Councils and the maintenance of registers of the veterinary practitioners and for matters connected therewith. Whereas it is expedient to make provision for the regulation of veterinary practice and to provide, for that purpose, for the establishment of a Veterinary Council of India and State Veterinary Councils and the maintenance of registers of person qualified to engage in veterinary practice for the whole of India for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto; And Whereas Parliament has no power to make laws for the States with respect to any of the matters aforesaid except as provided in articles 249 and 250 of the Constitution. And Whereas in pursuance of clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution, resolutions have been passed by all the Houses of the Legislatures of the States of Haryana, Bihar, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan to the effect that the matters aforesaid should be regulated in those Stats by Parliament by law.

7.1 As is evident from the Preamble of the Act the legislation has been enacted by invoking Article 252 of the Constitution as the subject matter of the Act falls in the State List (Entry 15 of List Ii of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution) though it also falls in the Concurrent List (Entry 25 of List Iii of the Seventh Schedule). In order to arm the Parliament with power to legislate on the matter, resolution under Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution was passed by the Houses of Legislature of the States of Haryana, Bihar, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan to the effect that the matters underlined in the preamble should be regulated in those States by a parliamentary legislation. 7.2 To achieve the object of the Act Vci has been established under Section 3 of the Act. We now extract and reproduce the provisions contained in Section 21(1)(b) and Section 22(1) by reference to which the impugned regulation is framed as also Section 66 of the Act by reference to which also the impugned resolution was sought to be defended at the hearing. 21.Withdrawal of recognition (1) When upon report by the Committee or the visitor, it appears to the Council- xxxxxxxxxx (b) that the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for instruction and training provided in such veterinary institution or in any college or other institution affiliated to it do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Council, the Council shall make a representation to that effect to the Central Government. xxxxxxxxxxxx 22. Minimum standards of veterinary education (1) The Council may, by regulations, specify the minimum standards of veterinary education required for granting recognised veterinary qualifications by veterinary institutions in those States to which this Act extends. (2) Copies of the draft regulations and of all subsequent amendments thereof shall be furnished by the Council to the State Government concerned and the Council shall, before submitting such regulations or any amendments thereof, as the case may be, to the Central Government for approval, take into consideration the comments of the State Government received within three months from the furnishing of the copies as aforesaid. (3) The Central Government may, before approving such regulations or any amendments thereof, consult the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. (4) The Committee constituted under section 12 shall from time to time report to the Council on the efficacy of the regulations and may recommend to the Council such amendments thereof as it may think fit." 66. Power to make regulations (1) The Council may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made under Section 64, to carry out the purposes of Chapters Ii, Iii, Iv and V. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the manner in which the President and Vice President shall be elected under sub-section (4) of Section 3; (b) the procedure to be observed respectively by the Council and the Committee at their meeting under sub-section (6) of Section 9 and sub-section (2) of Section 12; (c) the terms and conditions of appointment of the Secretary; other officers and employees of the Council under sub-Section (2) of section II; (d) the fees and allowances for attending the meetings of the Council and the Committee under Section 13; (e) the form and manner in which the Indian Veterinary practitioners register shall be maintained under sub-section (1) of Section 23; (f) the manner of keeping the Indian veterinary practitioners register under sub-Section (2) of Section 23; (g) the form and manner in which an application may be made under Section 24; (h) the form of application and the fee payable under sub-section (1) of Section 25; (i) the form of certificate of registration under sub-Section (2) of Section 25; (j) the fee payable under sub-section (3) of Section 25: (k) the form of duplicate certificate under sub-section (3) of Section 25; (1) the form and manner in which an application may be made and the fee payable under sub-section (1) of Section 26; (m) the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics to be observed by veterinary practitioners under sub-section (1) of section 31; (n) any other matter for which under this Act provision may be made by regulations.

7.3 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- Section I of Section 22 read with Clause (b) of sub- Section (1) of Sub-Section 21 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (52 of 1984), the Veterinary Council of India has with the previous approval of the Central Government made the Veterinary Council of India (Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education) Degree Course (BVSc and AH) Regulations, 1993 - hereinafter Regulations, for short. The Regulations are dated 7th February, 1994 and have been published in Gazette of India (Extraordinary) of the same day. What is relevant in the Regulation is only para 5 sub-para (8) which is extracted and reproduced hereunder :- "5.SELECTION Of Students The selection of students to a Veterinary course shall be on the merit of the candidate and for determination of merit the following criteria shall be adopted normally through out the country. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (8) 15% of the total number of seats of each Veterinary College shall be reserved to be filled on an all India basis through common entrance examination to be conducted by the Veterinary Council of India."

Sub-paras (1) to (7) provide the merit criteria and are not being reproduced. 7.4 On 28th May, 1995 the Vci conducted the examinations for the academic year 1995-96 and allotted students against such 15% seats in the various veterinary colleges and institutions in the States. For the academic year 1996-97, the Vci issued notice on 25th November, 1995 inviting applications for entrance examination to he held on 26th May, 1996 for the 15% All India merit seats. 7.5 The Vci then came across an advertisement issued by the I car in the "Employment News Bulletin" dated 2-8th March, 1996 stating that it shall hold on 8th June, 1996 an All India Common Entrance Examination for filling up such 15% seats. 7.6 The Vci is a statutory council and the only authority authorised to hold such examination under the Regulations. The I car, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 cannot hold such examination and thereby temper with the exercise of statutory power by the VCI. 7.7 Hence the suit for declaration and injunction. Case Of The Indian Council Of Agricultural Research

(8) The I car is a pioneer agricultural research institute registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Its main object is as under :- (A)To undertake, aid, promote and coordinate agricultural and animal husbandry education, research and its application in practice development and marketing in India and its protectorates and any other areas in or in relation to which the Government of India has and exercises any jurisdiction by treaty, agreement, grant, usage, sufferance or other lawful means by all means calculated to increase secure its adoption in every day practice, etc."

8.1 In exercise of the power conferred by Clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution and in supersession of all previous rules and orders on the subject the President of India has made the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 which had come into force on 14th January, 1961 (hereinafter "the Business Rules", for short) Rule 3 distributes the subjects amongst the departments. As per the Second Schedule appended to the Business Rules there is a Department of Agricultural Research and Education (Krishi Anusandhan Or Shiksha Vibhag), briefly and popularly known as DARE. Item 2 of Part-1 of entry-B of the said Second Schedule allocates to the Dare the following subject which falls within List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India :- 2.Fundamental, applied and operational research and higher education including co-ordination of such research and higher education in agriculture, agro forestry, animal husbandry, dairying and fisheries including agricultural statistics, economics and marketing.

8.1.1 Part-11 places 'Indian Council of Agricultural Research and its constituent Research Institutes, Stations, Laboratories and Centres' under the DARE. 8.1.2 Entry C in the Second Schedule of the Business Rules categories the subjects allotted to the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (Pashu Palan or Dairy Vibhag). They are:- "C.DEPARTMENT Of Animal Husbandry And Dairying (PASHU PALAN Aur Dairy VIBHAG) Part-1 The following subjects which fall within List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India :- 1. Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in Public interest as far as these relate to development of cattle feed with the limitation that in regard to the development of industries, the functions of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (Pashu palan aur Dairy Vibhag)do not go further than the formulation of demand and fixation of targets. 2. Livestock Census. 3. Matters relating to loss of livestock due to natural calamities."

8.1.3 It is to be noted that the subject of education is not to be found catalogued in entry C above said. It is already mentioned in entry-B. 8.2 A meeting of Vice-Chancellors of State Agricultural Universities of India was held on 17-18th April, 1995 it was unanimously decided to hold All India Entrance Examinations for 15% of the seats at under-graduate level in all disciplines including Veterinary Science. In pursuance of this decision correspondence was made with the State Government for their concurrence and approval. Most of the State Governments have ratified the decision. 8.4 The relevant recommendation of the Vice Chancellors' meeting (p.42) is extracted and reproduced as under :- Item No.6 : Admission under I car quota for graduate programme. The issue was discussed at length. Keeping in view the suggestion of Hon'ble A.M. that inbreeding in SAUs should be checked, there was a general consensus to increase intake of students from other states. There was also an agreement to make available 15% to 25% of seats for All India entrance test and allocation to different SAUs by I car. With regard to foreign students, the general view was that slots for foreign students should be over and above the intake capacity of the universities. With regard to the fees chargeable from foreign students, the guide lines of Dare may be followed. RECOMMENDATION1. It was agreed that SAUs will preserve 15% of undergraduate and 25% of post graduate seats for filling through all India test and subsequent placement by I car. Education Division may initiate and intimate action in this direction. 2. The seats left out after accommodating students eligible from common test would be filled up by the universities on merit. 3. The reservation as application to university seats would also be applicable to I car .quota as per mandatory requirements. The slots for foreign students would be in addition to intake capacity of the SAUs."

8.4 The matter came up for discussion in a meeting called by the Hon'ble Agricultural Minister on 29th December, 1995. The meeting was attended to by the following    1.Dr.R.S.Paroda, Secy (DARE) 2. Shri K.Rajan, Secy (AHD) 3. Shri G.S. Sahani, Secy (I car) 4. Shri H.Kumar, Js (AH), Ahd 5. Dr.M.L. Madan, DDG(AS), I car 6. Prof. Ram Kumar, Secy (VCI) 7. Mrs. Sarita J. Das, Js (SJD)  

It was unanimously decided as under :-    I)that the I car will conduct a combined All India Examination for the year 1996 and not the Veterinary Council of India; ii) that the I car will consult the Deptt. of Ahd regarding syllabi, etc iii) the Deptt. of Ahd will take such steps as necessary for making changes in the provisions of Rules/regulations enabling the I car to conduct the above examination; iv) the Vet. Council of India should not have acted in haste and should have awaited the orders of the Ministry when the matter was under consideration of the Ministry;  

(9) We now notice the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge which have persuaded him in granting the injunction to the Vci - the plaintiff before him. Learned Single Judge has held that the Regulation is statutory and unless its vires were challenged in appropriate proceedings and struck down the Regulations were binding. The Regulations having been framed with the previous approval of the Central Government and the I car was very much in picture in the matter of framing of the Regulations, they were binding on the I car too. In the absence of a substantive challenge laid in appropriate proceedings, the vires of the Regulations cannot be made a subject matter of controversy in the suit and ha to be given effect to.

(10) Two questions arise for decision :-    (I)Whether Regulation 5(8) is ultra vires the Constitution? (ii) Which of the two - the Vci or the I car is competent to hold All India Entrance Examination for allocation of 15% seats in the State Agricultural Universities?  

(11) Before we may proceed to deal with the questions above said, we may notice a few additional documents/material brought on record by the VCI. 11.1 Report of the Joint Committee to which Indian Veterinary Council Bill was referred has been placed before the Court. Attention is invited to the following passage from the principal changes effected by the Committee in the Bill and the reasons there- for :-    "BOTH in the oral evidence and the written submissions made before the Committee, overwhelming desire had been expressed for the inclusion of regulation of veterinary education amongst the functions of the Council. The Committee, after a careful consideration, has come to the conclusion that it is necessary that the Council should regulate veterinary education as without regulating standards of veterinary education for purposes of recognition of qualifications, it will not be possible to regulate the standards of veterinary practice. The new Clauses have been added to empower the Council to regulate veterinary education and to provide for other matters connected therewith.  

11.2 National Workshop of Veterinary Education was held on 6 and 7th February, 1993 at Madras. It was jointly sponsored by I car and Tamilnadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences Universities, Madras. The proceedings record the following inter alia :- "1.Minimum standards have to be fixed by the Veterinary Council for the duration, curriculum, contents, discipline, farm training, clinical training and internship training. Suitable flexibility in the regulations to meet the local conditions may be allowed without losing the basic requirements." xxxxxxxxxxxx 6. I car nomination of persons for admission to BVSc. Ah Course without minimum eligibility should be stopped. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8. At All India level a common test may be conducted by Veterinary Council of India and certain percent (not more than 10%) - of admission in a college may be made from this list to promote national integration."

11.3 Report of the Third Dean's Committee on Agricultural Education in India, held in 1985, published by I car contains the following minutes and summary of recommendations amongst others :- "PREVIOUS to the establishment of Veterinary Council of India the teaching of Veterinary course in various Universities were different but after the establishment of Vci and enactment of Indian Veterinary Council Act - 1984 by the Parliament it was made mandatory for all the Universities to adopt the regulations and standards of Vci for regulating Veterinary Service/Practice including Standards of Veterinary Education in India. After notification of Regulations on Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education, 1993 it has now become mandatory to adopt these minimum standards for Veterinary Courses by all the Universities. However, some clarifications are still required for proper implementation. (page 10) Dean's Committee has gone through the provisions of Vci and these were discussed thoroughly in the workshop of Sub-Group held at Madras. Keeping in view the discussions held during workshop and the provisions of Vci, Deans' Committee has recommended the requirement for the degree programme in Veterinary sciences."(Page 10) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(11) There should be a provision for the admission of students on national basis in higher agricultural education, crossing the barrier of states and regions. At least 15% seats in Ug and 25% seats in Pg should be provided in every university for the students from other states and Union Territories based on merits obtained in All India Entrance Test. (page 50)

(12) It has been forcefully submitted by Shri V.K.Puri, the learned counsel for Vci that all the bodies highly placed in the field of Veterinary and Agricultural Education have been recommending holding of All India Entrance Examination under the auspices of VCI. They have inspired and endorsed the provision like para 5(8) in the Regulations. The same having been framed in exercise of the statutory power conferred by an Act of the Parliament and with the previous approval of the Central Government, it is valid and binding on all concerned and must be given effect to.

(13) We now take up the two questions arising for decison. Admittedly, Vci is a statutory council establishes by Section 3 of Act No.52/84. It owes its existence to the said Act and independent of the Act it does not exist. It has to act within the four corners of its parent Act. While it must exercise all the powers and discharge all its functions and duties cast upon it by the Act, it cannot exercise a power or assume a function not conferred on it or contemplated by the parent Act.

(14) In Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association VS. Union of India and Ors.,  the following statement of law by Lord Macnaghten in West minister Corporation VS. London and North Western Railway, (1905) Ac 426, 430 has been quoted with approval (vide para 105) :-    "...IT is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers such as those conferred upon the Corporation must take care not to exceed or abuse its powers. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it."  

Their Lordships have in the same context proceeded to say further :-    "THIS principle was restated by this Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. V. Company Law Board,  : "......even if (the statutory order) is passed in good faith and with the best of intention to further the purpose of the legislation which confers the powers, since the Authority has to act in accordance with and within the limits of that legislation, its order can also be challenged if it is beyond those limits..."  

(15) In V.T.Khanzode & Ors. VS. Reserve Bank of India & Anr., , the following statement of law contained in paragraphs 1326 and 1333 (pages 775 and 7.79) of Halsbury's Laws of England, (Fourth edition) has been quoted with approval (vide para 18):-    "CORPORATIONS may be either statutory or non-statutory and a fundamental distinction exists between the powers and liabilities of the two classes. Statutory Corporations have such rights and can do such acts only as are authorised directly or indirectly by the statutes creating, them; non- statutory corporations, speaking generally, can do everything that an ordinary individual can do unless restricted directly or indirectly by statute."  

Paragraph 1333 says that :-    "THE powers of a Corporation created by statute are limited and circumscribed by the statute which regulate it, and extend no further than is expressly stated therein, or is necessarily and properly required for carrying into effect the purposes of its incorporation, or may be fairly regarded as incidental to, or consequential upon, those things which the legislature has authorised. What the statute does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited." (para 18) Their Lordships have further observed :- "There is no doubt that a statutory Corporation can do only such acts as are authorised by the statute creating it and that, the powers of such a Corporation cannot extend beyond what the statute provides expressly or by necessary implication. If an act is neither expressly or impliedly authorised by the statute which creates the Corporation, it must be taken to be prohibited. "(para 18) "....the powers of statutory bodies are derived, controlled and restricted by the statutes which create them and that any action of such bodies in excess of their power or in violation of the restrictions placed on their powers is ultra vires."(para 20) "The only precaution to observe in the cases of statutory corporations is that they must act within the framework of their charter. Its express provisions and necessary implications must at all events be observed scrupulously." (para 21)  

(16) In law there is not much distinction between rules and regulations framed under a statute. They are a piece of subordinate or delegated legislation. We may notice the relevant principles for testing the vires of such sub-ordinate legislation i.e. the regulations in the light of what has been contended by the learned counsel for the parties before us.   

(17) In Supreme Court employees Welfare Association VS. Union of India (supra), their Lordships have held :-    "A delegated legislation or a subordinate legislation must confirm exactly to the power granted." (para 62) "Rules whether made under the Constitution or a statute, must be intra vires the parent law under which power has been delegated." (para 98)  

(18) In General Officer Commanding-in-Chief & 'Anr. VS. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav &Anr., , it has been held :-    "BEFORE a rule can have the effect of a statutory provision, two conditions must be fulfillled, namely, (1) it must conform to the provisions of the statute under which it is framed; and (2) it must also come within the scope and purview of the rule making power of the authority framing the rule. If either of these two conditions is not fulfillled, the rule so framed would be void."  

18.1 In the above said case, the rule making provision of the Cantonment Act conferred power on the Central Government to make rules in the matter of "the tenure of office, salaries and allowances, provident funds, pensions, gratuities, leave of absence and other conditions of service of servants of boards." 18.2 In exercise of this power, the Central Government framed rules to make provision for transfer of the employees of the Boards. It was held that the rule was in excess of the rule making power given to the Central Government.   

(19) The Advocates Act, 1961 nowhere authorises any State Bar Council to prescribe qualifications and conditions entitling an advocate to vote at an election or for being chosen as a member of the State Bar Council. The power to prepare and revise from time to time the electroal rolls is given to State Bar Council. The State Bar Council, in the garb of making a rule for the preparation and revision of the electoral rolls also prescribed disqualifications, qualifications or conditions subject to which an advocate whose name occurs in the State Roll could find place in the electoral roll. It was held in Bar Council of Delhi & Anr. Vs. Surjit Singh, that any such provision in the rules was ultra vires and invalid.

(20) The Government while framing rules under the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1938 fixed the upper limit for the loans which the money lenders could lend though the Act nowhere provided for the fixing of such upper limit. In Sant Saran Lal VS. Parsu Ram Saha, it was held that the rule making power of the Government does not extend to the fixing of such a limit as it was not empowered by the Act.

(21) A Division Bench of our High Court has held in Durga Chand Kaushish & Anr. VS. Union of India & ors., :-    "A lacuna or absence of policy and purpose relatable to regulation or control in the principal Act cannot be removed or cured by the same being set out in the rules or regulations framed by an authority delegated by the Legislature to do so as a rule-making authority has no plenary powers and in so doing it would have transgressed the limits of power granted to it."  

(para 27).   

(22) If the rule making power has been exercised ultra vires the parent Act, the approval of the rules by any authority contemplated by the Act would not cure the invalidity. (See Regional Transport Officer VS. Associated Transport, Madras, ; Bar Council of Delhi & Anr. VS. Surjit Singh & Anr  and Hukum Chand VS. Union of India, .   

(23) It is very common for the legislature to provide for a general rule making power to carry out the purpose of the Act. When such a power is given, it may be permissible to find out the object of the enactment and then see if the rules framed satisfy the test of having been so framed as to fall within the scope of such general power confirmed. If the rule making power is not expressed in such a usual general form then it shall have to be seen if the rules made are protected by the limits prescribed by the parent act. (See Sant Saran Lal & Anr. VS. Parswam Sahu & Ors., ).   

(24) In the back ground of the above said principles of law, we may now test the validity of the impugned para 5(8) of the Regulations.   

(25) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 66 of the V.C. Act confers a power to frame regulations to carry out the purposes of Chapters Ii, Iii, Iv and V of the Act. These chapters relate respectively to the Constitution of the Indian Veterinary Council, recognition of Veterinary qualifications granted by Veterinary institutions in India and reciprocating countries (Chapter-11) Indian Veterinary Practitioners Register (Chapter-III), Privileges of Registered Veterinary Practitioners (Chapter-IV) and Discipline (of Veterinary Practioners)(Chapter-V). None of these chapters provides either expressly or by necessary implication for examinations being held or conducted by the Vci or admissions being regulated by the VCI. 25.1 A bare reading of Section 21(1)(b) of Vc Act reveals that it cannot by any stretch of imagination empower the Vci to frame regulation so as to confer on itself a power to hold an entrance Examination and/or to regulate admissions to veterinary institutions. 25.2 We have briefly noticed, the contents of the Chapters Ii, Iii, Iv and V and avoided detailed discussion thereof in as much as Shri H.K.Puri, the learned counsel for the Vci has during the course of his submissions took a clear and firm stand that the impugned Regulation 5(8) is covered only by Section 22(1) of the Act and the case of the Vci must stand or fall only by reference to the said Section 22(1).

(26) Section 22(1) speaks of "the minimum standards of veterinary education required for granting recognised veterinary qualification by veterinary institutions" being specified by regulations by the VCI. Even this provision does not speak of any examination being conducted by the Vci much less for the purpose of appropriating allocation of 15% seats in the State Agricultural Universities. It too does not speak of any admissions to institutions being regulated by Vci or by framing regulations. It hardly needs any reasoning to demonstrate the world of difference between 'specifying the minimum standards of veterinary education' and 'holding an examination for appropriating a quota of certain percentage of seats in veterinary institutions' or regulating admissions to veterinary educational institutions. We are very clear in our mind that the Regulation 5(8) could not have been framed by exercising delegated power to legislate under Section 22(1) of the Vc Act. . It is absolutely irrelevant and immaterial if the Central Government has approved such regulations or if the I car was also consulted on such regulation though there is no material brought on record to spell out I car having been consulted on the impugned Regulations.

(27) We may here it self take note of a decision by High Court of Karnataka in Veterinary Council of India VS. State of Karnataka, Ilr 1996 Kar 67 which was delivered on 27.11.95. The University of Agricultural Sciences Bengalore had refused to admit the candidates nominated for admission to BVSc & Ah Degrees pursuant to an entrance examination conducted by the VCI. Aggrieved by the communication dated 21.9.95 of the said University the Vci filed a writ petition. Dismissing it, the High Court of Karnataka held :- On a plain reading of Section 22, it is quite clear that under this provision the Council can make Regulations only for specifying minimum standards of Veterinary education required for granting recognised Veterinary qualifications by Veterinary Institutions in state/s to which the provisions of the Act has been extended. This Section does not confer upon the Council any authority to regulate the admissions to Veterinary Institutions. Similarly Section 66(1) read with Section 66(2)(n) also cannot be construed as conferring any authority on the Council for the said purpose. ....There is no provision under the Central Act which empowers the Council to make Regulations for regulating the admissions of students to Veterinary Institutions..... The Regulations framed by the Council for regulating admissions laying down the pattern of admission to Veterinary Colleges are merely advisory in nature and does not necessarily bind any University or the Veterinary Institutions." (emphasise supplied)

(28) Prior to the decision of the Karnataka High Court there was some confusion prevailing as to who would conduct the All India Entrance Examination. The report of IIIrd Dean's Committee (quoted in para 11.3 above) was apparently influenced by the regulations framed by Vci, Merely because the report has been published by I car it does not mean that it has become bound by the contents of the report. In view of the conflicting stands taken by the two authorities, namely, the Vci and the I car, the matter was taken up by the high level meeting convened by the Hon'ble Agricultural Minister. The judgment of Karnataka High Court appears to have been brought to the notice of the delegates at the meeting. It was clearly resolved that the I car, and not the Vci, will conduct a combined All India Entrance Examination for the year 1996. This was on 29.12.95. The meeting was attended to by the Secretary of VCI. Though Mr.H.K.Puri, learned counsel for the Vci, doubted the correctness of the proceedings of the meeting dated 29.12.95 by submitting that it was not attended to by the Secretary Vci, we are not impressed by the challenge so laid. It is merely an oral submission of the learned counsel though it might be under instructions of the VCI. We have perused the original record of the proceedings from the file made available for our perusal by the learned Counsel for the I car. The minutes are recorded and signed by the Joint Secretary (SJD). Communications have followed to all State Agricultural Universities and Vci with a copy to I car. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of the record made available for our perusal. In our opinion, after this meeting, the Vci should have stayed its hands and should not have indulged into ill advised adventurism of conducting the All India Entrance Examination much to the serious inconvenience, expenses and uncertainty of events to thousands of aspirants for admission to State Agricultural Universities against all India quota of 15% seats. The conduct of Vci is all the more reprehensible who having invited the judgment of Karnataka High Court by filing writ petition of its own refused to own the judgment delivered on 27.11.95 because it was unpalatable to it. Though Mr.Puri, the learned counsel for the Vci has pointed out that an intra-court appeal was filed against the Single Bench decision of Karnataka High Court and it was pending; the fact remains that the decision of the learned Single Judge was not.stayed by the Division Bench and so long as it was not stayed, the Vci was bound to abide by the dictum of the High Court.

(29) The reliance by the learned counsel, Mr.Puri on the report of the Joint Committee to which the Vc Bill was referred does not lend any support to the stand taken by the VCI. Firstly, the language of the Act is plain and its words have to be given effect to without stretching the meaning conveyed by it. Secondly, the report merely suggests that the Joint Committed was of the opinion that the Council should regulate veterinary education so as to improve its standards. From these proceedings it cannot be spelled out that even the Joint Committee had opined the Veterinary Council being empowered to conduct entrance examinations. Lastly, report of Joint Committee, though a permissible external aid to construction of a statute cannot be used to add to or substract from the plain language of an Act passed by Parliament.

(30) What was discussed at the National Workshop of Veterinary Education in 1993 (see para 11.2 above) is recorded in the proceedings. The proceedings merely indicate expectations of the workshop. They are of no use in interpreting the provisions of a legislative enactment.

(31) It is pertinent to note that the Act itself nowhere contemplates any examination being conducted or admissions to veterinary institutions being regulated by the VCI. The Supreme Court in the two decisions of Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. (supra) had emphasised the need of All India Medical Entrance Examination being conducted by the Government of India or the Indian Medical Council. Therefrom it cannot be inferred that the Supreme Court had conferred power on the Indian Medical Council to conduct such examinations, so as to infer (by parity of reasoning or by analogy) availability of a similar power in the Veterinary Council of India. Shri P.N. Lekhi, the learned Senior advocate appeared for the I car has pointed out that pursuant to Supreme Court decisions such All India Medical Entrance Examinations are being held but they are being conducted by the Government of India and not by the Indian Medical Council in as much as even the Indian Medical Council is not competent under its parent Act (the Indian Medical Council Act), 1956 - to hold and conduct such examinations. Shri Lekhi has brought to our notice a letter dated 16.10.95 written by Deputy Commissioner (LH), Ministry of Agriculture, to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, as also to Secretary, Medical Council of India which has brought a response dated 17.10.95 from the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Deptt. of Health. It is stated in the later letter :- "ENTRANCE Examination for 15% Undergraduate seats is conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education and for 25% P.G. seats by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Allotment of college, course and speciality to the successful candidates of All India Examination is done by the Directorate General of Health Services an attached office of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare."

(32) MR.P.N.LEKHI, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the I car has invited our attention to a few other legislations to submit how they are being interpreted in support of his argument based on the doctrine of contemporanea expositio. Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Advocates Act, 1961 have given birth to Indian Medical Council and Bar Council of India respectively. Inspite of the two legislations having been framed with objects more or less akin to Vc Act, neither the Indian Medical Council nor any Bar Council of India or States is holding any examinations in the field of professional education or exercising power to appropriate to themselves seats for admission in the concerned educational institutions imparting professional instructions. The Institute of Chartered Accountants holds such professional examinations because such a power is expressly conferred on it by Sections 4 to 7 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and regulations framed under Clauses (a) (b) and (c) of Sub- Section (2) of Section 30 of that Act which expressly speak of regulation being framed for examinations and matters relatable thereto.

(33) Para 5(8) of the Regulations is ultra vires the Act. The Veterinary Council of India could not have framed that regulation nor the Central Government could have approved same. It is liable to be struck down.

(34) Before parting with this topic we may also deal with the two unreported decisions of Patna and Kerala High Courts copies whereof were made available for our perusal by the learned counsel for the respondent and were also strongly relied by him. 34.1 In Munish Kumar Pane & Ors. VS. State of Bihar & ors. (CWJC No.9643 of 1995) decided on 18.12.95, the petitioners had taken All India Entrance Examinations conducted by the Vci and became entitled to admission. The Veterinary Science College, Patna refused to allow admission to the petitioners on the ground that there was no instruction from the Rajendra Agricultural University relating to admission of the petitioner. The petitioners placed reliance on the Regulations of 1993. The plea of the University was that the regulation was not binding on it. In fact it was the only plea raised by the University. The Additional Standing Council of Central Government appeared on behalf of the Veterinary Council of India and supported the case of the petitioners. The question of vires or validity of regulation 5(8) did not come up before the Court. On the contrary it was admitted by all the parties that Section 22 of Act No-52/84 was mandatory and hence Court concluded that the regulation was also mandatory and the respondent University was bound to follow it. 34.2. In Joythi Shah B.& ors. VS. Administrator Union Territory Lakshydweep and Ors, Wa No. 129/96 decided on 19.3.96, the prospects of Kerala Agricultural University provided for 15% were reserved for for candidates allowted by Veterinary Council of India and of All India Entrance examinations. 10 seats were reserved unanimous of other State Government public Union territories sponsored by I car while para 7.2.5 of the prospectus. The petitioners who were wards of the employees of. the Union Territory of Lakshydweep were spons order by the I car under this category. The petitioners were initially granted admission which was cancelled on a direction issued by the Vci, failure to comply with which would have entail withdrawl of recognition of the university. The Division Bench proceeded on the assumption that after passing of the Regulation, 1993, 15% of the suits being filled up by Vci on the basis of a common All India Entrance examination. Remaining seats were to be filled up by holding State Level Qualifying Examination. Even if seats were reserved for a particular class or category, candidates belonging to such class or category had to appear at one or other entrance examination. As the petitioners had not taken any entrance examination, they could not be admitted to the institution. The question of vires of regulation 5(8) did not arise, before the Court. 34.3. About both the decisions there are two prominent features : one, I car was not imp leaded as a party; two, the decision by Karnataka High Court though available as having been delivered much before the date of the two decisions and certainly in the knowledge of the Vci was not brought to the notice of the High Courts either of Patna or of Kerala which in our opinion and in all fairness the Vci should have done.

(35) Though a writ petition has now been filed by .the I car seeking striking down of the said Regulation 5(8) and therefore the question whether a civil court can enter into vires of legislation or delegated legislation is rendered academic merely, yet in view of the question having arisen and argued at the Bar we may summarily touch and dispose of this aspect. Straightaway, we may refer to the provisions contained in Section 113 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 228 of the Constitution. Section 113 of the Civil Procedure Code contemplates a case pending before any Court and involving a question as to the validity of any act, ordinance and regulation or any provision contained therein, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case. If the Court is of the opinion that it is invalid and inoperative but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the Court shall state a case, setting out its opinion and the reasons thereof and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court. Such a question may arise by way of an issue in any suit and it is not necessary that a suit must have been filed specifically seeking relief of declaration of its nullity or of its being struck down.

(36) Article 228 of the Constitution provides as under :- "228.If the High Court is satisfied that a case pending in a Court subordinate to it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, it shall withdraw the case and may :- (a) either dispose of the case itself, or (b) determine the said question of law and return the case to the Court from which the case has been so withdrawn together with a copy of its judgment on such question, and the said Court shall on receipt thereof proceed to dispose of the case in conformity with such judgment."

(37) Both the above said provisions refer to a Court subordinate to the High Court. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held in State of M.P. VS. Smt. Mathura Devi, 1991 (1) Mpjr 416:- "COURTs subordinate to the High Court are not supposed to enter into and adjudicate upon questions involving validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation, or any provision contained therein or as to the interpretation of the constitutional provisions, is an injunction which finds constitutionality mandated in Article 228 of the Constitution of India and statutorily enacted in Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The basic distinction between Section 113 Civil Procedure Code and Article 228 of the Constitution is that if the question is confined to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or any provision contained therein without involving the question as to the interpretation of the Constitution, the matter would lie within the compass of Section 113. Where a substantial question of law arises before a subordinate Court which requires a Constitutional provision to be interpreted, the matter would lie within the scope of Article 228 though in most of the cases, the situation may be overlapping.

(38) We are, therefore, of the opinion that in a suit pending before the High Court (Original Side) if a question may arise as to the invalidity or vires of regulation it can be heard and decided though a suit or proceeding specifically seeking adjudication of ultra vires and striking down of-such regulation has not been filed.

(39) In So far as the I car is. concerned, it is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1960. Its constitution, historical background and nature of function it discharges, have all been extensively dealt with by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors. VS. Union of India & Ors., . We need not restate what is already available in a law report. The I car had started as a department of the Government of India. Inspite of its having been incorporated and registered as a Society it continues to be under the DARE. At no stage the control of the Government of India has ever flinched (See para 12 of the P.K. Ramchandra lyer's case, supra). If it is holding entrance examinations under the decision taken by the Central Government, no fault can be found therewith,

(40) For the foregoing reasons, Cwp 2334/96 is allowed. Sub-para (8) of para 5 of the Veterinary Council of India (Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education) Degree Course (B.V.Sc and A.H.) Regulations, 1993 is struck down as ultravires the Veterinary Council of India and ultra vires the Veterinary Council Act, 1984. The entrance examination held by the Veterinary Council of India on 26.5.96, pursuant to its notice dated 25th November, 1995 is also held void and without any authority of law.

(N>) 41 FAO(OS) 231/96 is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5th June, 1996 is set aside. The injunction restraining the I car from conducting All India Common Entrance Examination for filling up 15% of total number of seats in the State Agricultural Universities is hereby vacated. Costs in both the proceedings shall be borne as incurred by both the parties.