Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. Chandurkar, Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Administrative Council Walchand College of Engineering and ors. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra Through the Ministry of Higher and Technical Education and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.14369 of 2022, Interim Application (St) No.12830 of 2023 Writ Petition No.13025 of 2016 With Interim Application No.1057 of 2020
Decided On : 21-02-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions concerning control of college management. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. historical context and the establishment of the college. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. various state departments and parties articulate their positions. (Para 6) |
| 4. arguments against the control of respondent no.4. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. arguments relating to the regulatory compliance of petitioner no.1. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. court's analysis focusing on historical context of control. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. historical context crucial in determining current control dynamics. (Para 18 , 32 , 57) |
| 8. intention and agreements regarding governance structure. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. assessment of ugc regulations and implications on governing structure. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 10. conclusions about the legitimacy and powers of petitioner no.1. (Para 67 , 70 , 72) |
| 11. subsequent actions are decided based on prior agreements. (Para 68 , 69) |
JUDGMENT :
Jitendra Jain, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
2. This is one of those matters where the parties are wrestling to continue/regain control of a body that is in-charge of control and management of the one of the finest engineering college of the State.
3. In Writ Petition No.14369 of 2022, the Petitioners are challenging the communication dated 4th October 2022 issued by Respondent No.1-State to Respondent No.4-Society and communication dated 4th November 2022 issued by Respondent No.5-University to Respondent no.4-Society, whereby Respondent Nos.1 and 5 have nominated their representative on the governing body constituted by Respondent No.4 to control and manage the Petitioner No.2-College. The Petitioners have further sought a relief in the nature of declaration that they be declared as being in control and management of affairs of the Petitioner No.2-College.
4. Narrative of events :-
(ii) Respondent No.4-Society gave two alternatives to Respondent No.1-State, namely either to give financial grant so that Respondent No.4 can pay off the liabilities of the College or Respondent No.1-State should take over the management and control and assets and liabilities of the College.
(iii) On the request made by the Respondent No.1-State and the Central Government, Petitioner No.3-Trust agreed to give financial assistance to stabilize the financial condition of the college with various conditions inter alia that the Petitioner No.3-Trust would be given due representation on the college Governing Board and the name of the college would be changed to “Walchand Hirachand College of Engineering.” After due consultation among Petitioner No.3-Trust, Respondent No.1-State, Respondent No.4-Society and the Central Government, Petitioner No.3 donated the amount agreed upon and an Ad hoc Committee was appointed by the Government which took charge of the affairs of the college, the said Ad hoc Committee was constituted by the Government in which Petitioner No.3-Trust had one representative on the said committee.
(iv) On 24th June 1955, the Ad hoc Committee was replaced by Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council and it was agreed more particularly by Petitioner No.3, Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.1 that Petitioner No.1 would have its own Rules and Regulations to manage and control the affairs of the College. It was also agreed that the management and control of the college would be exercised by Petitioner No.1-Administrative Council which b
The administrative body of a college retains control over its management absent clear legal violations, upholding prior statutory decisions and institutional independence.
The controlling authority of an autonomous college is determined by historical agreements and compliance with statutory regulations, resultant from financial interventions that led to restructuring g....
The court established that the advisory nature of governing bodies under the M.G. University Act does not compromise the management autonomy of minority educational institutions guaranteed by Article....
Governing Body” or the “Managing Council” — which are mentioned in Sections 54 and 55 of the “M.G.University Act” — are only advisory in nature and distinct from the Management or Educational Agency,....
A Manager of a Committee of Management cannot initiate a writ petition without prior authorization from the Committee, thus impacting the maintainability of such petitions.
The Vice Chancellor can only constitute an Ad hoc Governing Body if no regular Governing Body exists, reaffirming the authority of the college's founders to form the permanent body.
Compliance with statutory requirements for appointment of Authorised Controller and the principle of 'Delegatus non potest delegare'
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
