Legislative action, plenary or subordinate, is not subject to the rules of natural justice.

( 1 ) JUDICIAL review of State action by way of certiorari has been invoked by none else than the Vice-Chancellor of Devi Ahilya Vishwavidhalaya, Indore. This Court is faced with a dispute in which academic administrative law, delegated legislation involving Constitutional law, natural justice all come together on a high level of legal principles, veering round the "autonomy of a University" established under the M. P. Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973 (for short 'adhiniyam' ).

( 2 ) A fax message Anx. P2 from the State Capital, has prompted the petitioner to rush to this Court for seeking relief-including interim one which was granted by order 22-194 as it was contended before us that no notification as contemplated by S. 52 of the Adhiniyam was issued by the State Govt. and published in the Govt. Gazzette. ( 3 ) THE State action was dubbed and denounced as an act of procedural impropriety, violative of elementary rules of natural justice. The challenge undoubtedly was not frivolous. Even if a few including the petitioner, might have thought it to be well founded and fewer still might have been resolute enough to defy, at any rate, attempt to defy the interim orders passed by this Court on 22-1-94 and 25-1-94 at the preliminary stage of hearing. It was possibly this order which led to filing of the Notification Dt/- 21-1-94 issued by the Respondent State Govt. , represented by Shri G. M. Chaphekar, Sr. Advocate with Shri S. Kulshrestha, learned Addl. Advocate General. Although the petition was yet to be admitted, Shri A. M. Mathur, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the petitioner with Shri P. Mathur moved an application for production of complete record pertaining to the issuance of publication of Notification u/ s. 52 of the Adhiniyam. The respondents were directed to keep the record ready for Court's inspection; since the State entered appearance and placed Notification on record, even at preliminary stage of admission of the petition, it was virtually finally heard on merits.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner, highlighting academic distinction and achievements of the petitioner, urged that there was absolutely no justification for the State Govt. for taking action u/ 5. 52 of the Adhiniyam; more so, in violation of rules of natural justice, affording no opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner to put forth his case, according to him it was an administrative action absolutely lacking any reason and fairness.

( 5 ) SHRI Chaphekar, Sr. Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand, argued that action taken u/ s. 52 of the Adhiniyam is in exercise of power of legislation delegated to the executives which rules out the question of affording an opportunity of being heard. Referring to the petition, it was submitted that the petition itself is ill-conceived. Action taken u/s. 52 is not attracted against any individual but it is a power conferred on the State and so long such power is exercised strictly within its ambit and scope, for the purposes of better administration of university, on grounds as enumerated under sub-sec. (1) of S. 52 of the Adhiniyam it cannot be called in question. Explaining the distinction, an action taken under sub-sec. (3) of S. 14 (provides condition of service of Kulpati) and S. 52 of the Adhiniyam, learned Counsel submitted that the question of giving an opportunity of being heard against the proposed actions of calling upon the Kulpati to relinquish his office arises as envisaged by sub-s. (3) of S. 14, which provides that no order under sub-sec. (3) can be passed unless particulars of the grounds on which such action is proposed to be taken, are communicated to 'the Kulpati and he is given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order. Such is not the intent and purpose of S. 52 of the Adhiniyam which is essentially legislative in nature - a power delegated to the Executive. Sub-sec. (4) of S. 52 enumerates the consequences ensuing from the action taken