2005(6) Supreme 193
Supreme Court of India
(From Chhattisgarh High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Rai University —Petitioner
versus
State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. —Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10506 of 2005
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 267 of 2005
With
IAs No. 11-12, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22 of 2005
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 19 of 2004
And
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16520 of 2005
All decided on 7-9-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Rakesh Dwivedi, (A.C.), G.L. Sanghi, Mukul Rohtagi, Dushyant Dave, Sr. Advocates, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, Prashant Kumar, Ms. Santosh Singh, Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Ms. Deepti Singh, Rajesh Srivastava, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocates.
Held : The Second Schedule to the Act gives the territorial jurisdiction of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, and Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur, which are the two State universities functioning in Chhattisgarh. The territorial jurisdiction of these universities is confined to districts which are within the State of Chhattisgarh. In view of this clear provision of the Adhiniyam, no statute can be made which may permit affiliation of any institution or college to a State university in Chhattisgarh if the said institution or college is situate outside the State of Chhattisgarh. The validity of the impugned statute, therefore, cannot be assailed on the ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. (Para 8)
At the time of hearing of the writ petition filed by Prof. Yashpal, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the private universities had established large number of study centres at various places all over the country. We, therefore, consider it proper to clarify that while making the aforesaid observation, it was not meant that affiliation must necessarily be sought only with an already existing State university in Chhattisgarh. The institutions of the erstwhile private universities, if otherwise eligible, may apply and seek affiliation with any other university which has jurisdiction over the area where the institution is functioning and is empowered under the relevant Rules and Regulations and other provisions of law applicable to the said university to grant affiliation. The decision on the application may be taken expeditiously in the interest of study community and there should be no prolonged uncertainty about their future. (Para 10)
The study centres of erstwhile Rai University which are outside the State of Chhattisgarh may take appropriate steps for their affiliation in the light of the clarification made above and the letter dated 23rd March, 2005 of the Chairman of Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Regulatory Commission. (Para 11)
(ii) Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002—Chhattisgarh Vishwavidayalaya Adhiniyam, 1973—Section 36—Statute No. 27(A)(5)—Validity—Application moved by Mewar University, a private university—Applicant’s claim that it is running two institutes, one in Ghaziabad (State of UP) and other at Chittorgarh (State of Rajasthan)—Prayer made for direction to State of Chhattisgarh to ensure affiliation of the students, who are studying in these institutes—Whether, considering that the institutes are located outside the State of Chhattisgarh, any such direction can be issued to the State of Chhattisgarh—(No)—It is open to the institutes, if otherwise eligible, to seek affiliation with any other university which has jurisdiction. (Para 17)
Judgment
G.P. Mathur, J.—
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10506 of 2005
1. This Special Leave Petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.4.2005 of High Court of Chhattisgarh by which Writ Petition No. 1506 of 2005 filed by the petitioner, Rai University, was dismissed.
2. The provisions of The Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short “the Act”) were challenged by Prof. Yashpal by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in this Court. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 11.2.2005 and the judgment delivered is reported in JT 2005 (2) SC 165 (Prof. Yashpal & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.). Paragraphs 45 and 46 of the reports, which have a bearing on the controversy in hand, are reproduced hereinbelow:
“45. As a consequence of the discussion made and the findings recorded that the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act are ultra vires and the Gazette Notifications notifying the Universities are liable to be quashed, all such Universities shall cease to exist. Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that the UGC had conducted an inquiry and it was found that most of the Universities were non-existent, but the report was not placed before the Court as the complete exercise had not been done. Learned counsel for the Universities have seriously disputed this fact and have submitted that the Universities are functioning. We have not gone into this question as it is purely factual. In order to protect the interest of the students who may be actually studying in the institutions established by such private Universities, it is directed that the State Government may take appropriate measures to have such institutions affiliated to the already existing State Universities in Chhattisgarh. We are issuing this direction keeping in mind the interest of the students and also Sections 33 and 34 of the Act, which contemplate dissolution of the sponsoring body and liquidation of a University whereunder responsibility has to be assumed by the State Government. It is, however, made clear that the benefit of affiliation of an institution shall be extended only if it fulfills the requisite norms and standards laid down for such purpose and not to every kind of institution. Regarding technical, medical or dental colleges, etc. affiliation may be accorded if they have been established after fulfilling the prescribed criteria laid down by the All India, Council of Technical Education, Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India or any other statutory authority and with their approval or sanction as prescribed by law.
46. In view of the discussions made above, Writ Petition (C) No. 19 of 2004 (Prof. Yashpal & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and Writ Petition (C) No. 565 of 2003 (Gopalji Agarwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.) are allowed and provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 are declared to be ultra vires and are struck down. As a consequence of such declaration, all notifications issued by the State Government in the Gazette in the purported exercise of power under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act notifying the Universities (including respondent Nos. 3 to 94) are quashed and such Universities shall cease to exist. If any institutions have been established by such Universities, steps may be taken for their affiliation to already existing State Universities in accordance with the direction contained in paragraph 45 above. Parties would be at liberty to approach the High Court if any dispute arises in implementation of this direction. All Writ Petitions, Civil Appeals and Transferred Cases filed by the private Universities are dismissed.”
4. Thereafter, the State of Chhattisgarh made Statute No. 27(A) in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973. Clause (5) of Statute 2
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.