1992 Supreme(Guj) 149

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.B.SHAH
HETALKUMAR B.SHAH - Appellant
Versus
MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY - Respondent
CRI.M.A. 3928 of .
Decided On : 06/25/1992

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 226 – B. E. at M. S. University of Baroda – Completion of all Semesters successfully except final year – Indian Institute of Management conducted a Common Admission Test in December 1991 for grant of admission to the Post-Graduate Programme beginning eligibility criteria laid down for said test prescribes that a candidate must have a Bachelors degree in any discipline recognised by Association of Indian Universities. It also carves out an exception for those candidates who are to appear for the final examination for Bachelors degree. It provides that such candidates if selected will be admitted provided they complete all requirements for obtaining the degree – Common Admission Test was conducted for grant of admission to 1992 onwards programme students appeared at the test – For admission to IIM Ahmedabad 12994 students applied. To 218 students provisional admission was offered – Petitioner that petitioner received a letter from respondent No. 2 informing him that he has been selected for provisional admission to IIMs Post-Graduate Programme in Management for the session beginning subject to the condition mentioned in the said letter – One of conditions is that petitioner should submit a certificate from Registrar of respondent No. 1 issued that the petitioner has completed all the requirements such as theory and practical examinations for obtaining Bachelors degree if petitioner was in final year of Bachelors degree course at the time of applying for the Post-Graduate Programme in Management – Petitioner that final year examination of B. E is normally held and completed – It is his contention that at Baroda in the University Campus Convention of All India Science Congress was held and on that account Seventh Semester examination was delayed and it was to be held – Held, Learned Counsel further submitted that as action of respondent No. 2 in not relaxing the condition in petitioner is unreasonable this Court should interfere and for that purpose he relied upon the decisions of Supreme Court in case of Municipal Council – Supreme Court Cases 91 wherein it has been observed – It was urged that the basic concept of the manner of development of real estate and disposal of occupancy rights were vitiated by unreasonableness. It is a truism doctrinally that powers must be exercised reasonably. But as Prof – Wade points out doctrine that powers must be exercised reasonably has to be reconciled with no less important doctrine that the court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which Parliament appointed to take the decision. Within the bounds of legal reasonableness is the area in which the deciding authority has genuinely free discretion – If it passes those bounds it acts ultra – Court must therefore resist the temptation to draw the bounds too tightly merely according to its own opinion – It must strive to apply an objective standard which leaves to deciding authority the full range of choices which the legislature is presumed to have intended. Decisions which are extravagant or capricious cannot be legitimate – But if decision is within the confines of reasonableness it is no part of the courts function to look further into its merits. With question whether a particular policy is wise or foolish court is not concerned it can only interfere if to pursue it is beyond the powers of the authority. . . . "th Court thereafter considered doctrine of unreasonableness and relied upon the decision in the case of Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans (1982) 3 All ER 141 144 and observed as under – When Lord Denning H. R. stated in Court of Appeal that Not only must be given a fair hearing but the decision itself must be fair and reasonable – House of Lords thought that statement of learned Master of the Rolls if allowed to pass into law would wrongly transform the remedy of judicial review as the statement would imply that the court can itself sit as in appeal in judgment of the reasonableness of the decision instead of on the correctness of the decision-making process. The purpose of judicial review it was stated – Petition is dismissed.