SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 336

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
JITENDRA JAIN, A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Administrative Council, Walchand College of Engineering, through its Member Mr. Ravindra Purohit and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through the Ministry of Higher and Technical Education and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.14369 Of 2022 with Interim Application (St) No.12830 Of 2023 With Writ Petition No.13025 Of 2016 With Interim Application No.1057 Of 2020
Decided On : 21-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Shailesh Naidu, Ms. Rashmi Raghavan, Mr. Prasad Shenoy, Ms. Viloma Shah and Mr. Harshad Vyas, Mr. Ativ Patel, Mr. Darshit Jain & Mr. Pradeep Kumar i/by AVP Partners, Mr. Ram Apte, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Padmanabh D. Pise a/w Ms. Sejal A. Hariyan i/by P. Padmanabh & Associates, Mr. S.S. Patwardhan a/w Mr. Y.G. Thorat & Mr. H.M. Khupsare i/by Mr. Ashok Tajane, Mr. Anil Sakhare, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP, Ms. Anjali Helekar, Mr. Rajdeep Khadapkar, Mr. Rui Rodrigues a/w Mr. Jainendra Sheth, Mr. Sadashiv Deshmukh, Mr. Shanay Shah i/b. Shubro Dey.

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 governance away from its founding society.

Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner alleges unlawful takeover of college management by the society. Resolution from 1961 indicates cession of control from society to administrative council. Respondents' related communications appointing representatives on the society's governing body challenged. (Paras 4-67)

(B) Educational Law - Autonomous Colleges - Compliance with UGC Regulations - Court holds that petitioner council remains in charge of college management despite society's contention. Examines history of control and management rights since 1955, concluding that society divested itself from control. The 2018 UGC Regulations maintained. (Paras 6-42)

(C) Public Interest - The management structure of the autonomous college must align with established regulations to ensure academic excellence, separating governance from ownership. The court emphasized past agreements affirming management transition to the council. (Paras 16-54)

(D)

Result: Writ Petition No. 14369 of 2022 allowed; respondent communications quashed; petitioner recognized as in charge of college management and control.

Table of Content
1. historical context and financial assistance to the college. (Para 4)
2. petitioners challenging state’s communication. (Para 5)
3. petitioners argue for rightful control and management. (Para 7)
4. respondent no.4 asserts ownership and control. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. neutral stance of ugc regarding the dispute. (Para 13 , 14)
6. court acknowledges historical agreements dictating management. (Para 16 , 19)
7. court examines compliance of ugc regulations. (Para 20 , 40)
8. relevant communications and parties' actions regarding management. (Para 21 , 36)
9. validation of the administrative council's structure and function. (Para 38 , 45)
10. court conclusion on quashing prior communications. (Para 48)
11. court's ruling on the legality of the communications. (Para 50 , 54)

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 :-

    (i) In the year 1947, Respondent No.4-Society started an Engineering College at Sangli, Maharashtra which was named as ‘New Engineering College.’ As the College started growing, it could not match the requirement of finance. The financial condition of the college was precarious and therefore Respondent No.4-Society requested Respondent No.1-State and the Central Government to support them by giving financial assistance.

    (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 body would be distinct and separate from Respondent No.4-Society. The Rules and Regulations were formed and accepted by a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top