ORDER :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. In this intra-court appeal, unsuccessful writ applicant lay challenge to the order dated 11.1.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.452 of 2018, where-under Special Civil Application, filed questioning the resolution No.22 dated 31.8.2017 passed by the Syndicate of respondent University was not entertained and at the threshold, petition has been dismissed by assigning the following reasons:-

“4. When the impugned resolution is seen, it is manifested from the resolution that in the meeting of Syndicate held on 31.08.2017 in which the impugned resolution was passed, the petitioner was present in the meeting and participated in the decision making process. When the impugned resolution is passed by the Syndicate of which the petitioner is a member, the petition cannot be said to have locus standi in law to challenge the resolution. He is a participatory in the meeting in which the collective decision was taken by the Syndicate. As a member of the Syndicate, the petition is bound by the said decision and cannot be permitted to resile therefrom so as to acquire any locus standi to raise challenge there against. The petitioner stands divested of locus in law to file the petition to challenge the decision of the Syndicate-the resolution in question.”

2. We have heard Mr. I.H. Syed, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. A.D. Oza, learned counsel appearing for respondents. Perused the case papers.

3. Appellant, who is the writ applicant before learned Single Judge assailed the resolution No.22 dated 31.8.2017 passed by the Syndicate of respondent University, whereby it was resolved thereunder by the University to impose fine of Rs.2 lakh from the concerned colleges in the event of students’ admission sought in Sardar Patel University affiliated colleges get their admissions cancelled and in the event of University receiving applications in writing for return of original documents and fee is not returned being proved. The learned Single Judge has refused to entertain the petition on the ground that petitioner is a member of the Syndicate and he had participated in the meeting of the syndicate and is bound by the said decision and cannot be permitted to resile therefrom so as to acquire any locus standi to raise the challenge against the said resolution.

4. It is the contention of Mr. I.H. Syed, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that said finding of learned Single Judge is contrary to the minutes of the meeting, whereunder it is recorded that there was an objection raised by the appellant and as such, the finding of learned Single Judge to the effect that it was a collective decision is contrary to the records. He would further elaborate his submission by contending that UGC notification dated nil of December 2012 (Annexure-C) would provide mechanism for redressal of the grievances, if any, and it is in this background, petitioner as a member of the syndicate had objected to for said resolution being passed where-under Syndicate resolved to impose penalty on colleges and on account of UGC regulation having been given complete go-bye, the resolution would not stand the test of law and as such, he has prayed for order of the learned Single Judge being set aside and Special Civil Application being allowed.

5. Per contra, Shri A.D. Oza, learned counsel appearing for respondents would support the impugned order.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, we notice that petitioner is an advocate by occupation as indicated in the cause title of the appeal memorandum itself and he was elected to the syndicate of first respondent University and in that capacity, undisputedly he participated in the deliberations of the meeting of University Syndicate held on 31.8.2017 which culminated in resolution No.22, being passed, where-under it was resolved by the syndicate to impose fine of Rs.2 lakh on such of the affiliated colleges which