Pravin Balisingh Raghuwanshi vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(Bom) 1147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
Pravin Balisingh Raghuwanshi (Dr.) – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others – Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 2865 OF 2009
Decided on : 12-8-2010.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.W. Sambre, GP for respondents No. 1 & 2.
Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for respondents No. 3 & 4.
Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

Headnote:Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - Sections 14(7) and 32(4) - Invalidation of nomination of petitioner - To Board of Examination under Section 31(3)(f) by Vice-Chancellor - Matter reconsidered as per directions of Court - Fresh notification issued under Section 14(7) of Act - Challenged - Contention, no Authority/Board was functioning in University and it was necessary to place matter before Board of Examination within 4 weeks, which was impossible hence decision to nominate - Held - Petitioner not pointed out why time bound direction of Court could not be considered by Board of Examination under Section 32(4) - Section 14(7) not includes a power in Vice-Chancellor to nominate a Member on Board of Examination - Nomination of petitioner illegal and rightly declared as invalid - Judgment orders warrants no interference - Petition dismissed. - The perusal of provisions of Section 14(7) of the Act show that when Vice-Chancellor has reasonable ground to believe that there is an emergency warranting immediate action, he could take that action. Section 14 deals with powers and duties of Vice-Chancellor. Under sub-section (7) after action is taken, he has to report in writing the same to such authority or body as would have in ordinary course dealt with the matter. Here, the matter was to be dealt with by Board of Examinations and nomination of the petitioner on Board of Examination could have been done by the Management Council. The note prepared by Controller of Examinations on 3.10.2005 is already commented by me above and it does not point out provisions of Section 32(4) of the Act to Vice-Chancellor. It also does not state that the Board of Examinations with six members is available. Thus grounds relevant to enable Vice-Chancellor to form a particular belief were not placed before Vice-Chancellor at all. The option available to him as Chairman of Board of Examinations to take decision under Section 32(4) of the Act in the case of emergency is also not pointed out.
       The perusal of impugned order dated 30.4.2009 shows that it makes reference to two petitions dated 20th and 21st November, 2006 questioning purported emergency regarding appointment of the petitioner and then calling of report from Vice-Chancellor. The report was submitted by the Vice-Chancellor on 23.2.2006. Then various provisions including provision of Section 14(7) are looked into and as noted that it was felt that Section 14(7) cannot include power to nominated a member on Board of Examinations as in case at hand power to nominate could not be construed as an emergency power. The impugned order mentions that, therefore, a show-cause notice under Section 9(4) was issued to all concerned and the Hon’ble Chancellor then finds from the reply of Vice-Chancellor that motive behind nomination was not a emergency. The contents of reply submitted by the petitioner is mentioned in para 12. The oral submissions of the petitioner find place in para 17 and the consideration and findings appear in para 20. It has been concluded that emergency power of Vice-Chancellor under Section 14(7) of the Act cannot be said to include a power to nominate or co-opt a member on Board of Examinations. The nomination of the petitioner was, therefore, found not legal and hence it was declared invalid. Obviously, the finding is, after considering the facts of the matter. The relevant dates are noticed by respondent No. 2 and delay in taking steps itself has been found to be inconsistent with the argument of the emergency. The application of mind, therefore, cannot be said to be either erroneous or perverse. The provisions of Section 32(4) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, were also pointed out to the Hon’ble Chancellor. Petitioner before this Court is not complaining of any procedural violations.
       Looking to the finality given to his orders under Section 9(4) read with Section 108 of the Act, it is clear that in limited scope of judicial review available to this Court, no interference is warranted in the matter. Even otherwise, it has been found by this Court that material relevant for reaching a conclusion as to existence of reasonable ground under Section 14(7) warranting an emergent action was not pointed out of the Vice-Chancellor.
       Thus, having found that respondent No. 4 - Vice-Chancellor could not have resorted to Section 14(7) of the Act in the matter as there was no emergency and in any case recourse thereto is vitiated because o f wrong information and non-consideration of relevant factors having vital bearing on it, it is apparent that the petitioner cannot take any exception to the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by respondent No. 2 in the matter. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties.

2. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Chancellor and his Excellency The Governor of Maharashtra, Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University and a Notification dated 08.05.2009 issued by Respondent No. 3 in consequence thereof. The Hon'ble Chancellor is Respondent No. 2 in the present matter. Respondent No. 2 has by the impugned order declared nomination of the petitioner to Board of Examinations under Section 31(3)(f) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Respondent No. 4 Vice Chancellor, invalid. The nomination has been done by invoking powers under Section 14(7) of the above Act by Respondent No. 4 Vice Chancellor.

3. Respondent 6 Shri Santosh Madhavrao Thakre filed Writ Petition No. 4560 of 2005 before this Court challenging Notification dated 16.02.2005 issued by the Registrar, Amravati University, punishing him for indulging in unfair practice in the conduct of examination. The Division Bench of this Court on 03.10.2005 quashed and set aside that notification and remanded the matter to Board of Examinations (present Respondent No. 5) for fresh consideration within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of that order. The order was communicated immediately and on 14.10.2005, the Registrar of University notified appointment of the petitioner under Section 14(7) of the Act. It appears that Civil Application No. 6981 of 2005 was moved in Writ Petition No. 4560 of 2005 seeking extension of time and on 28.10.2005 this Court granted time of six weeks to Respondent No. 3 University to comply with its orders.

4. In this background, I have heard Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 & 2, Shri Kilor, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4 and Shri Kasat, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. Respondents No. 6 to 10 have chosen not to appear, though they are served.

5. Shri Khapre, learned counsel has after pointing out necessary facts stated that because of time bound direction issued on 03.10.2005 by this Court, the University has placed the matter before Respondent No. 4 Vice Chancellor and in exercise of powers under Section 14(7) of the Act, the nomination of the petitioner has been rightly made. He has invited attention to powers available to the Chancellor under Section 9(4) to urge that said powers are general in nature and do not cover exercise of powers by Vice Chancellor under Section 14(7) of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., reported at AIR 1961 SC 1170. To urge that powers exercised were due to emergency and hence Vice Chancellor is even otherwise competent to meet with such situation, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sahiti & Ors. vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors., reported at AIR 2009 SC 879. He further states that the nomination of the petitioner was placed before the competent authority i.e. Management Council in its meeting dated 10.02.2006 and this action under section 14(7) was approved by the Management Council. He points out that the Management Council was constituted on 07.12.2005. After approval of Management Council in the matter, according to the learned counsel, the appointment of the petitioner was ratified and could not have been interfered with under Section 9(4) by the Hon'ble Chancellor. He is taking support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Mining Corporation vs. Sunil, reported at AIR 2006 SC 1923, in this respect. To point limited scope of power available in such matters to Respondent No. 2 or to even

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(Bom) 1147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCHB.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.Pravin Balisingh Raghuwanshi (Dr.) – Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and others – RespondentsWRIT PETITION NO. 2865 OF 2009Decided on : 12-8-2010.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
Pravin Balisingh Raghuwanshi (Dr.) – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others – Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 2865 OF 2009
Decided on : 12-8-2010.