Back
1999 Supreme(MP) 775
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
C. K. PRASAD
PROF.NARENDRA KUMAR GOURAHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
W. P. 1836 Of 1999
Decided On : 10/07/1999
AJAY RAIZADA, VIVEK TANKHA
The State Government's power under Section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Universities Act, 1973, to invoke emergency powers and apply modified provisions to a university is subject to judicial review, but the Court cannot assess the sufficiency or insufficiency of the material on which the State Government based its decision.
Headnote:
MADHYA PRADESH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1973 - SECTION 52 - EMERGENCY POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT - APPLICATION OF MODIFIED PROVISIONS - JUSTIFIABLE REASONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the Vice-Chancellor of Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University, challenged the State Government's notification invoking emergency powers under Section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Universities Act, 1973, and the subsequent appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner alleged mala fide intentions by the Chancellor and a conspiracy to remove him from office.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Government's power under Section 52 is not comparable to the President's power under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, as it does not assume the powers of the University's governing bodies. However, the Court clarified that the State Government can exercise this power on justifiable reasons and that the Court can review the existence of material warranting such action, but not its sufficiency or insufficiency.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government's invocation of emergency powers under Section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Universities Act, 1973, was justified. 2. Whether the Court can review the sufficiency or insufficiency of the material on which the State Government based its decision.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State Government's decision to invoke emergency powers under Section 52 was justified based on the existing material, which included reports of a distorted relationship between the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar, leading to administrative collapse, and the University's failure to fulfill its responsibilities towards students and society. 2. The Court clarified that it can review the existence of material warranting the State Government's action under Section 52, but it cannot go into the sufficiency or insufficiency of such material.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's submissions. It also awarded exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the State Government due to the uncalled for and malicious allegations made in the writ petition.
( 1 ) PETITIONER was the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No. 3 i. e. Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University (hereinafter referred to as the 'university' State Government came to the conclusion that the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') without detriment to its interest, it exercised the powers conferred under Section 52 (1) of the Act and issued notification dated 8-1-1999 directing that the provisions of Sections 13, 14, 20 to 25, 40, 47, 48, 54 and 67 shall apply to the University; subject to the modification specified in the Third Schedule of the Act. After the issuance of the aforesaid notification, the Chancellor of the University in exercise of the power conferred under modified Sections 13 and 14 read with Section 52 (3) of the Act and in consultation with the State Govt. by notification dated 8-1-1999, appointed Sri V. K. Dalela, Commissioner, Raipur Division as the Vice-Chancellor of the University. After issuance of the notification by the State Govt. dated 8th January, 1999, exercising its power to apply the provisions of the Act in modified form, Registrar of the respondent University issued notice dated 8th January, 1999, intimating that the administration of the University shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, in the modified form. By this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the aforesaid notifications and notice.
( 2 ) DEHORS, subter fuge, facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 17th January, 1996, for a period of 4 years. During the continuance of the aforesaid appointment, State Govt. earlier exercised its power under Section 52 of the Act and one Prof. H. R. Singh was appointed at the Vice-Chancellor. As a result thereof, the appointment of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor came to an end. He challenged the same by filing writ petition before this Court which was registered as W. P. No. 1807/97. This Court by its Judgment dated 13-5-1998 : (AIR 1999 Madh Pra 122) passed in W. P. No. 1807/97 allowed the writ petition holding that the power exercised by the State Govt. under Section 52 of the Act as also appointment of Prof. H. R. Singh as the Vice-Chancellor was illegal. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner was again allowed to function as the Vice-Chancellor of the University from 16-5-1998.
( 3 ) IT is the stand of the petitioner that after his joining; he discovered as embezzlement of Rs. 50,89,000/- against the erstwhile Registrar Sri P. V. Trivedi and his successor A. K. Shukla. It is the stand of the petitioner that the Chancellor of the University wanted that the case be dropped against them; but guided by his conscience, he instituted a high power committee to go into the question of the financial irregularity. Such committee never became functional. It is further assertion of the petitioner that the Chancellor of the University not only prescribed the petitioner to drop enquiry into the embezzlement case against the previous Registrars, but thought the current Registrar Sri A. K. Srivastava, was forcing him to perpetuate another financial fraud by giving contract to the printer of his choice for printing question papers of supplementary examination at a cost of Rs. 15,65,000/ -. However, the name of the printer purportedly of the choice of the Chancellor has not been disclosed in the writ petition. Petitioner asserts that resisting all sorts of pressure from the Chancellor, he got the question papers printed in just less than Rs. 2,00,000/- and this action of the petitioner annoyed the Chancellor. He has also stated in the writ petition that on being exposed before the public for his interest and involvement in financial fraud and embezzlement, the Chancellor e
