Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. DHANUKA, MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.
Vikrant Halkandar - Appellant
Versus
The Principal, Pravin Gandhi College of Law Mithibai College Campus & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 6736 of 2020
Decided On : 06-01-2021
For the Appellant :Rajesh P. Behere a/w Rahul R. Singh, Pranali Raut, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Arshad Shaikh a/w Manorama Mohanty, A.P. Singh i/by M/s. S.K. Srivastava & Co., Advocates.
The main legal point established is that a Writ Petition is maintainable against a private body discharging public functions, and the petitioner was entitled to back wages and costs as per the previous order.
Headnote:
Maintainability - Writ Jurisdiction - Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 - [SHOW CAUSE NOTICE] - [EMPLOYMENT] - [Section 81] - [Public Duty, Writ Jurisdiction]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice issued by the respondent no. 1 and sought full back wages in compliance with a previous order. The respondent raised an issue of maintainability based on being a private institution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's employment was governed by the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 and the institution was bound by its provisions. The court held that the Writ Petition was maintainable against the private institution as it discharged public functions.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the Writ Petition and the entitlement of the petitioner to back wages and costs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments to establish that a Writ Petition is maintainable against a private body discharging public functions. It held that the petitioner was entitled to back wages and costs as per the previous order.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to pay the petitioner back wages and costs as per the previous order.
JUDGMENT :
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the Show Cause Notice dated 19th October, 2020 issued by the respondent no. 1. By the said show cause notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary action shall not be initiated against the petitioner in respect of various alleged acts on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for an order and direction against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to pay full back wages in compliance with the order dated 28th March, 2019 passed by the Mumbai University and School Tribunal along with cost.
2. Matter was adjourned on the last date to enable the learned counsel for the respondents to take instruction whether respondents would pay the back wages on its own or requires an order to be passed by this Court. Today, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 instead of making a statement, seeks to challenge the writ petition on the ground of maintainability.
3. Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 raised an issue of maintainability of this Writ petition on the ground that the respondent no.1 is a private institution and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the petitioner even otherwise is not entitled to challenge the show cause notice in this writ petition.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the following Judgments:-
(i) Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of D.S. Veer Ranji Vs. Ciba Speciality (I) Ltd. & Ors., 2002 (1) Bom.C.R. 29;
(ii) Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2005 AIR (SC) 2677;
(iii) Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Trigun Chand Thakur Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2019 DGLS (SC) 935;
(iv) Judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Chandra Nath Thakur & Ors., 1999 (1) B.L. Jud. 740;
(v) Judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Trigun Chand Thakur Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2008 (2) PLJR 718.
5. In view of issue of maintainability raised by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, we shall first deal with the said objection. It is not in dispute that Pravin Gandhi College of Law is affiliated to University of Mumbai and is run by Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal.
6. It is also not in dispute that the said institution running the said college, Pravin Gandhi College of Law had appointed the petitioner as Assistant Professor in Political Science in the said college. In clause 9 of the order dated 2nd January 2016, it was clearly provided that services of the petitioner will be governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 and the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules of the University of Mumbai for the time being in force and the rules of Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal not consistent with the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules of the University. The petitioner had accepted the terms and conditions of the said appointment. In view of the dispute having been arisen between the petitioner and the respondent nos.1 and 2 arising out of the said employment, the petitioner had exercised his remedy by filing an appeal bearing No.26 of 2018 under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.
7. Section 81 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 prescribed the condition for affiliation and recognition of College or Institution. The Management applying for affiliation or recognition and management whose college or institution has been granted affiliation or recognition has to file an undertaking in the manner prescribed therein. Clause (f) of Section 81 provides for strength and qualifications of teaching and non-teaching staff of the affiliated colleges and recognised institutions and the affiliated colleges as prescribed by the university and which shall be sufficient to make due provision for courses of study, tea
