Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ, MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI, J
SATISH PRADYUMNA PATHAK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 36 of 2024
(A) University Grants Commission Regulations - Appointment of Vice Chancellor - Public Interest Litigation filed for issuance of writ of quo-warranto against the appointment of respondent No.6 as Vice Chancellor, claiming it to be illegal under UGC regulations - Resignation of respondent No.6 accepted by the State Government before hearing commenced - Court proposes to hear all questions raised in the writ petition on merits despite resignation. (Paras 1, 2, 3)
(B) Writ of quo-warranto - Court's jurisdiction to issue writ of quo-warranto is contingent upon the office being held - With resignation accepted, the writ cannot be issued, but merits of the appointment are to be considered. (Paras 2, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed challenging the legality of the appointment of respondent No.6 as Vice Chancellor, claiming it contravened UGC regulations. Respondent No.6 submitted resignation, which was accepted by the State Government before the hearing commenced.
Findings of Court:
The Court decided to hear all questions raised in the writ petition on merits, despite the resignation of respondent No.6.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appointment of respondent No.6 was valid and if the writ of quo-warranto could still be issued after resignation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the resignation of respondent No.6 rendered the writ of quo-warranto moot, but the validity of the appointment would still be examined on its merits.
Result: The matter is posted for further hearing.
ORDER :
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.
1. We may record, at the outset, that Mr. Sudhir I. Nanavati, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Mrugen Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 would submit that the present petition may be rendered infructuous with the submission of the resignation by respondent No.6 and acceptance of the same by the State Government, before hearing in the writ petition could commence.
2. The submission is that the Public Interest Litigation has been filed with a prayer for issuance of writ of quo-warranto, on the premise that the appointment of respondent No.6 on the post of Vice Chancellor is illegal, being contrary to the regulations framed by the University Grants Commission (UGC). But with the submission of the resignation and acceptance thereof by the State Government, once respondent No.6 has left the office of the Vice Chancelor, writ of quo-warranto cannot be issued. The submission of the learned senior counsel for respondent No.6, thus, is that the only option before the Court is to render writ petition infructuous with the acceptance of the resignation of respondent No.6. Mr. Anshin Desai, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Baiju Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that this question along with the main issues raised in the writ petition are to be heard and the writ petition is to be decided on merits, even if the resignation of respondent No.6 from the post of Vice Chancellor has been accepted, inasmuch as, the appointment of respondent No.6 since inception was invalid.
3. Taking note of the above contentions, we propose to hear all questions raised in the writ petition together. It is transpired to the Court that an affidavit dated 15.1.2025 has been served upon the counsels appearing for the respondents on 17.1.2025, to which a reply is required to be filed.
4. As prayed by the learned counsels for the respondents, the matter is posted on 28.1.2025 at 12.30 hrs to enable the learned counsels for the respondents to file a response to the affidavit of the petitioner and make their submissions on the issues raised in the writ petition.
The court retains jurisdiction to examine the merits of a public interest litigation challenging an appointment, even after the resignation of the individual involved renders the specific writ moot.
A litigant invoking PIL jurisdiction must approach the court with clean hands and disclose all relevant facts. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the action without examining the merits ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition seeking a writ of Quo-Warranto against a public official may need to be filed as public interest litigation if it does not inv....
The court ruled that the appointment of the Registrar was valid as it followed the proper selection process, and the petitioner lacked locus standi and delayed in filing the writ petition.
A writ of certiorari seeking to quash the appointment of a sitting Vice-Chancellor is not maintainable, necessitating a fresh examination of the legal submissions by the learned Single Judge.
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
