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
| 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 :-
(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
Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and Ors.
The administrative body of a college retains control over its management absent clear legal violations, upholding prior statutory decisions and institutional independence.
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,....
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.
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.
Compliance with statutory requirements for appointment of Authorised Controller and the principle of 'Delegatus non potest delegare'
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.