The repeal of a statute nullifies any authority to act under it, including forfeiture of funds, unless explicitly saved by a saving clause.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner, being a public charitable trust registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, has approached this Court praying therein for quashing/setting aside of the decision as contained in Memo No. 471 dated 20.03.2024, passed by the Department of Higher and Technical Education, State of Jharkhand; whereunder an order has been passed for forfeiting the entire endowment fund to the tune of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Four Crores) only of the petitioner.

3. The brief facts as it appears from the pleadings is that the petitioner’s charitable trust has been registered with the object to impart education, medical relief, relief to poor, etc. and was desirous to establish a University at Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand.

4. The Government of Jharkhand framed a ‘Model Guidelines’ for establishment and incorporation of Private Universities in the State of Jharkhand primarily with a view to improve access to the Higher Education in the State to enhance the Gross Enrolment Ratio and also to improve overall quality of Higher Education in Jharkhand by encouraging reputed Educational Institutions to set up new Institutions in the State.

5. Petitioner applied pursuant to aforesaid Model Guidelines for establishment and incorporation of Private Universities in the State of Jharkhand and, pursuant to scrutiny of its application, a Letter of Intent (In short ‘LOI’) contained in Letter No. 2270 dated 30.11.2015 was issued by the State Government accepting the proposal of the petitioner for establishment of Private University in the State of Jharkhand. In the said LOI, various conditions were imposed upon the petitioner including the condition to deposit of an Endowment fund of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Four crores) only for multi-domain educational curriculum. Said LOI further provided, inter alia, that the petitioner should acquire 25 acres of land for multi-domain educational curriculum and, further, it was provided, inter alia, that petitioner would give an undertaking not to dissolve the University before 15 years of its establishment and if the University is dissolved before 15 years, all the assets of the University without liabilities and free from all encumbrances, shall vest with the Government.

6. Consequent upon the said Letter of Intent, Petitioner gave its consent and created an Endowment fund of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- (Four crores) vide Fixed Deposit drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Main Road, Ranchi Branch vide F.D. No. 191822 dated 19.02.2016. In fact, the petitioner, immediately after issuance of aforesaid LOI, even entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 11.01.2016 for purchase of land measuring an area of 29 acres and advanced a sum of Rs.55,02,200.20/-to landowner.

Thereafter, Government of Jharkhand enacted ‘Pragyan International University Act, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), wherein provisions were incorporated for establishment of a university in the name and style ‘Pragyan International University’.

7. Schedule-A of the said Act provided, inter alia, for acquisition of 25 acres of land for multi-domain functioning of the university within two years after starting the functioning of the university and establishment of integrated campus having certain facilities in common, such as, Auditorium, Cafeteria, Hostels, etc.

8. Further, Section 37 of the Act provided, inter alia, that Petitioner-Trust shall establish an Endowment fund for the University with an amount specified in the Letter of Intent and said Endowment fund shall be used as Security Deposit to ensure that the University complies with the provisions of the Act. Section 37(2) gave power to the State Government to forfeit the Endowment Fund, in part or whole, in case the University contravenes any of the provisions of the Act, Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations or the Rules made under the Act.

9. From the pleadings, it further transpires that despite the fact that petitioner entered into an Agreement fo