Karnataka High Court
The National Law School Of India ... vs The University Grants Commission on 1 June, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.A. NO.604 OF 2021 (EDN-RES)
IN
W.P.No.63550 OF 2016 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY
ESTABLISHED UNDER THE NATIONAL LAW
SCHOOL OF INDIA ACT, 1986
GNANA BHARATHI MAIN ROAD
NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-560 242
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. ADITYA SONDHI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MRS. NIDHISHREE B.V. ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
ESTABLISHED UNDER THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION ACT, 1956
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI-110 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. THE UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
SHASTRI BHAWAN
DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD
NEW DELHI-110 001
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SHOWRI H.R. CGC FOR R1
MR. CHANDRA CHUD, CGC FOR R2)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 19/05/2021 PASSED IN WRIT
PETITION NO.63550/2016, AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN
ITS ENTIRETY AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed
the validity of the order dated 19.05.2021 passed by learned
Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the appellant
has been dismissed.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant at the
outset submitted that the appellant had challenged the
validity of University Grants Commission (Institution of
Eminence Deemed to be University) Regulations, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for short). The
challenge to the aforesaid communication as well as validity
of the Regulation was made on different grounds and the
contentions made before the learned Single Judge which are
recorded in paragraph No.3 of the order. However, without
adverting to the aforesaid contentions, the learned Single
Judge has disposed of the writ petition. It is therefore,
submitted that the matter be remitted to the learned Single
Judge to decide the controversy afresh in accordance with
law.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent has supported the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and has submitted that the controversy has
been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge, therefore, the
matter need not be remanded.
4. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. The reliefs claimed
in the writ petition read as under:
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing the public notice bearing F.No.12-
9/2016 (DEB-III) dated 19.07.2016 (at
Annexure L) and communication bearing
F.No.12-12/2016 (DEB III) dated 06.10.2016
(at Annexure-M) issued by respondent No.1.
(ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing Annexure IV b) of the University
Grants Commission (Open and Distance
learning) Regulations, 2017 (at Annexure-A)
issued by the respondent No.1 in the interests
of justice.
(iii) Grant such and further orders and
reliefs as may be just including the costs of
this petition, in the interest of justice.
5. The aforesaid relief was claimed on the basis of the
averments made in the writ petition and on various grounds
which were urged therein. The following submissions were
made by learned Senior counsel for the appellant, which are
recorded in Paragraph No.3 of the order. Paragraph No.3 of
the order reads as under:
3. It is contended at the hands of the
petitioner that by placing a restriction on the
territorial jurisdiction, the UGC has violated the
right of the petitioner under Articles 14 and
19(1)(g) and the Right to Education under
Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. It is
contended that when there was no restriction
of the territorial jurisdiction under the Act by
which the petitioner - University is established,
the same cannot be imposed upon the
petitioner by the UGC. It is contended that it is
by now well established that UGC is
established under an Act of the Parliament for
maintenance of standard of education in the
country, but the impugned public notice,
communication and Regulations, 2017 travel
beyond the powers of the UGC. It is
contended that such restriction is inconsistent
with the object and nature of distance
education. However, it is contended that the
petitioner-University has established any study
centre beyond Karnataka and neither overseas.
On the contrary the petitioner-University
established examination centres at New Delhi,
Kolkata and Pune, other than Bengaluru. It is
therefore, contended that it is beyond the
powers of the UGC to place restrictions on the
petitioner-University directing it not to conduct
examinations in the examination centers which
are beyond the territories of the State where
the University is established.
6. From conjoint reading of paragraph Nos.7 to 9, it
is evident that the contentions raised by learned Senior
counsel for the appellant as recorded in Paragraph No.3 of
the impugned order have neither been adverted to nor have
been adjudicated while disposing of the writ petition.
Therefore, the order dated 19.05.2021 passed by learned
Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the
learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition afresh in the
light of the pleadings of the parties and in the view of the
contentions which may be raised by the parties.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
