IMPORTANT POINTS
Right to equality – Though a legislation affecting a single entity or a single undertaking or a single person would be permissible in law, it must be on the basis of reasonable classification having nexus with object to be achieved – There should be a reasonable differentia on the basis of which a person, entity or undertaking is sought to be singled out from rest of group.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 1st November 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 17150 of 2017 (O&M), whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants inter-alia seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari praying for quashing “The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act 2017” dated 17th July 2017.

FACTS:

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass.

3.1. In the year 2010, the State of Punjab framed the Punjab Private Universities Policy, 2010.¹ [Hereinafter referred to as the “2010 Policy”]

3.2. The Khalsa College Charitable Society, Amritsar² [Hereinafter referred to as the “Khalsa Society”] (appellant No. 2 herein), which was in existence since 1892, submitted a proposal to the State Government for setting up a self-financing University in the State of Punjab on the basis of the 2010 Policy.

3.3. On 5th March 2011, the Higher Education Department, Government of Punjab, after examining the proposal, issued a Letter of Intent to Khalsa Society for establishing and running the Khalsa University, Amritsar.³ [Hereinafter referred to as “Khalsa University”]

3.4. On 7th November 2016, the Punjab Vidhan Sabha passed The Khalsa University Act, 2016⁴ [Hereinafter referred to as “2016 Act”] (Punjab Act No. 44 of 2016). The 2016 Act received the assent of the Hon’ble Governor of Punjab on 7th November 2016 and the same was published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary on 17th November 2016.

3.5. The Khalsa University (appellant No. 1 herein), after its establishment, was imparting courses in 26 programmes and 215 students were admitted for the Academic Session 2016-17.

3.6. On 18th January 2017, the Registrar of Khalsa University communicated to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Punjab, that they have enacted the Statutes of the Khalsa University in consonance with the 2010 Policy, the 2016 Act and University Grants Commission⁵ [Hereinafter referred to as “UGC”] guidelines.

3.7. On 6th April 2017, the Superintendent of Higher Education Department, Government of Punjab, communicated to Khalsa University that no admission process will be started till the Statues of the University are approved by the State Government. The same was reiterated by another communication dated 17th May 2017.

3.8. On 30th May 2017, the State Government promulgated an Ordinance thereby repealing the 2016 Act. Shortly thereafter, the Punjab Vidhan Sabha passed The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act 2017.⁶ [Hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Act”]. The Impugned Act received assent of the Hon’ble Governor on 4th July 2017 and the same was published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary on 17th July 2017.

3.9. Aggrieved by the communications dated 6th April 2017 and 17th May 2017, the promulgation of the Ordinance and passing of the Impugned Act, the Khalsa University and Khalsa Society (hereinafter referred to as “appellants”) filed a Writ Petition being C.W.P. No. 17150 of 2017 (O&M) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

3.10. Vide final judgment and order dated 1st November 2017, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal arises.

SUBMISSIONS:

4. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Shadan Farasat, learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. Shri Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Impugned Act is patently arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. Shri Patwalia submits that the mala fides in passing of the Impugned Act are apparent inasmuch as the statements made by Captain Amarinder Singh, who at the relevant time was in the opposition, would clearly show tha