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

2022 Supreme(Raj) 711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sameer Jain, J.
Sita Devi Educational Society, Bhilwara Through Its Secretary and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department and ors. – Respondents
13200, 5864, 10222, 13652, 13806, 13825, 14157, 17038, 17770, 17609 of 2019, 7841 of 2016, 3966, 4033, 8406, 8407, 8409 of 2017, 1803, 27851, 27855, 25209 of 2018, 3439, 3450, 1753, 1757, 3544, 4027, 4028 of 2020, 3427, 3438, 7714, 3292, 3293, 4439, 4732, 4733, 7150, 7151, 291, 1057, 8189, 8648 of 2021
Decided On : 11-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahendra Shah, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Adv., Ms.Pragya Seth, Adv., Ms.Sarah S. Sharma, Adv., Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. Naveen Dhuvan, Adv., Mr. Manu Bhargava, Adv., Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Joshi, Adv., Mr. B.L. Saini, Adv., Mr. Vijay Jain, Adv., Mr. K.A. Khan, Adv., Mr. Atar Singh, Adv., Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Adv., Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Prakhar Gupta, Adv., for Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG M. Aditya Sharma, Dy. GC Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Sudhir Yadav, Adv.

Headnote:

Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 - of Sections 2(e), 2(p), 3, 5, 7, 33, 34, 42 ,43 - Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 - Rules 2(f) - Competent Authority - Rule 3 - Recognition of Institution – Rule 5 - Procedure for Recognition - Rule 7 - Withdrawal of Recognition - Competent Authority - Recognition of institutions - Penalty for transfer or closure of a recognised institution without notice and without satisfying the competent authority - Penalty for not discharging the duties of secretary - Delegation of powers - Power to make rules – Held, Private Colleges Policy whereby penalty provisions have been introduced are also illegal on account of fact that Commissioner, College Education or any other authority has not been delegated powers under Act of 1989 - In light of judgment of Apex Court in Canon India Private Limited (supra), Commissioner, College Education was not having any authority to issue such directions/ instructions /policy for imposition of penalty - Petitions disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

1. All these writ petitions involving almost common cause are listed before this Court under the order dated 17/11/2021 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & ors. Vs. Lok Manya Tilak College, Ramgarh, Alwar (DB Special Appeal Writ No.690/2021) whereby the Hon'ble Division Bench observed as under:-

    "Learned counsel for the appellant-State Government stated that against similar interim order passed by the learned Single Judge the State had preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.646/2021 which was disposed of on 17.08.2021 giving liberty to the petitioner to move the learned Single Judge for fixing earlier date of hearing. Consequently, request was made to the learned Single Judge and those petitions are coming up for hearing on 22.11.2021. Let Civil Writ Petition No.17770/2019 also be tagged along with the similar cases before the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

2. As per observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench, referred to above, all the connected matters were tagged either as per directions of this Court or on insistence of learned Advocates representing various parties having common cause.

3. All these writ petitions were categorized in three broad categories and lead matters were taken up for disposal qua the issues which were identical on facts but were having different prayers.

4. The first set of writ petition was qua the declaration of policy issued by the Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan as without jurisdiction qua the imposition of penalty for regularizing the deficiencies in temporary recognition as ultra-vires and illegal. In this regard, the lead case of Sita Devi Educational Society Vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ Petition No.13200/2019) was taken up which was argued by learned Senior Counsel-Mr. Mahendra Shah.

5. In second set of writ petitions, apart from seeking directions to the respondents for issuance of No Objection Certificate, an additional prayer was made for striking down Clause 13 of the Private College Policy for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 and in this regard, the lead case of Lok Manya Tilak College Vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ Petition No.17770/2019) was taken up which was argued by Mr. Manu Bharagava, Adv. and other respective counsels.

6. The third and last category of writ petitions was qua prayers for issuance of directions to the respondents for issuance of NOC or for directions to the University to extend affiliation or for declaration of students from ex-student to regular student or for permitting the students to appear in the examination or for extension of temporary recognition. In this regard, the lead matter in Saraswati College, Reni, Alwar (SB Civil Writ Petition No.3292/2021) was argued by Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Adv. and other respective counsels.

7. Upon hearing the aforesaid bunch matters, the first and foremost argument which was taken up by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mahendra Shah pertained to the powers of the Commissioner, College Education for imposition of pecuniary punishment by way of penalty for compounding the deficiencies for grant of temporary recognition and regularizing the same by imposition of the penalty for issuance of NOC. It was submitted by learned Sr. Counsel that if the penal provisions of the policy for various years are declared ultra-vires, illegal and beyond jurisdiction of the Commissioner, College Education, the instant bunch matters can be decided and the consequential relief asked for in the prayers can be granted without adverting to the issues of NOC/Policy and categorization of the students.

8. In the light of the said submission and on agreement being reflected by respondents' counsels appearing for the State, Universities represented by Mr. Prakhar Gupta, Mr. Vinod Gupta and others, at the outset, it was agreed upon to consider these matters on the

            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