(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
G.S. Singhvi and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ.
People’s University v. State of M.P. and another
Civil Appeal No.5920 of 2012 : against the judgment and order of
M.P. High Court, passed in Review Petition No.195 of 2012;
Decided on 21.8.2012.
Held : In our view, even though the learned Single Judge may not have been justified in recalling order dated 6.1.2012 merely because he, on a detailed analysis of section 36 of the Act felt that the Commission acts as a bridge in between the State Government and the Central Regularoty bodies and the amendments suggested by the State Government in the First Statutes were meant to achieve the objects set out in section 36(1), the impugned order does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution because the procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge in deciding the writ petition was contrary to the basics of natural justice. The request made by the counsel appearing for respondent No.1 for grant of time to seek instructions ought not to have been rejected at the threshold. It is quite possible that the counsel representing the appellant may have pressed for early disposal of the writ petition but the prayer made therein was not such which could justify denial of opportunity to respondent No.1 to file an affidavit to controvert the averments contained in the writ petition and to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued for publication of the First Statutes and the First Ordinances.
We also agree with the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the appellant’s writ petition should have been heard by the Division Bench of the High Court and the learned Single Judge committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining and allowing the same. In the writ petition filed by it, the appellant repeatedly emphasized the need for early publication of the First Statutes and the First Ordinances and made a grievance that delay in that regard was affecting the admission process in various courses. This is evident from the contents of paragraphs No.4, 5.2, 5.4 to 5.9, 5.11, 6.3, 6.5, 6.8, 6.10, 6.14 and 6.15 of Writ Petition No.22021/2011. The First Statutes and the First Ordinances, of which publication was sought, also deal with the policy of admission including the regulation of reservation of seats for different categories and admission of students and their enrolment. This was as per the requirement of section 26(1)(i) and section 28(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, in terms of rule 2(7)(e) of the Rules the writ petition should have been listed before the Division Bench of the High Court. The error committed by the Registry of the High Court in listing the matter before the learned Single Judge was compounded by him by entertaining and allowing the same. Therefore, there was every justification for recalling order dated 6.1.2012 so that the matter could be heard by the Division Bench.
[Para 16
futh fo’ofo|ky; ¼LFkkiuk ,oa lapkyu½ vf/kfu;e] 2007 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 26] 28] 35 rFkk 36 & e/; izns’k mPp U;k;ky; fu;e] 2008 & fu-2¼7½¼³½ & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 14 rFkk 226 & ijekns’k dh fjV & lquokbZ dk volj nsus ds i’pkr~ gh tkjh dh tkuk pkfg, Fkh & blds vfrfjDr] uhfr fo”k;d ekeys [kaM U;k;ihB ds le{k gh lwphc) fd;k tkuk pkfg, u fd ,dy U;k;ihB ds le{kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gekjs fopkj esa] Hkys&gh fo)ku ,dy U;k;k/kh’k vkns’k fnukad 6-1-2012 dks ek= blfy, okil e¡xkus esa U;k;laxr u gksa D;ksafd mUgksaus vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 ds foLr`r fo’ys”k.k ij vuqHko fd;k fd vk;ksx jkT; ljdkj rFkk dsanzh; fu;ked fudk;ksa ds e/; lsrq dk dk;Z djrk gS rFkk izFke dkuwuksa esa jkT; ljdkj )kjk lq>k, x, la’kks/ku dk vFkZ /kkjk 36¼1½ esa fu;r mn~ns’;ksa dks izkIr djuk gS] vkf{kIr vkns’k esa lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 136 ds v/khu gLr{ksi dh vko’;drk ugha gS D;ksafd fjV ;kfpdk dk fofu’p; djus esa fo)ku ,dy U;k;k/kh’k )kjk viukbZ xbZ izfdz;k uSlfxZd U;k; ds vk/kkjksa ds izfrdwy FkhA izR;FkhZ dz-1 dh vksj ls milatkr dkmUlsy )kjk vuqns’k <¡w<us ds fy, le; ek¡xus dh izkFkZuk izkjaHk esa gh ukeatwj ugha dh tkuh pkfg,A ;g iw.kZ :i ls laHko gS fd vihykFkhZ dk izfrfuf/kRo djus okys dkmUlsy us fjV ;kfpdk ds ‘kh?kz fuiVkjs ij cy fn;k gks ijarq mlesa dh xbZ izkFkZuk ,slh ugha Fkh tks izR;FkhZ dz-1 dks fjV ;kfpdk esa varfoZ”V izdFkuksa dk [kaMu djus ds fy, ‘kiFk&i= izLrqr djus ds rFkk ;g dkj.k nf’kZr djus ds volj dk izR;k[;ku U;k;laxr Bgjk ldrh gks fd izFke dkuwuksa rFkk izFke v/;kns’kksa ds izdk’ku ds fy, ijekns’k D;ksa tkjh ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A
ge izR;FkhZ dz-1 dh vksj ls fo)ku dkmUlsy ls bl ij Hkh lger gSa fd vihykFkhZ dh fjV ;kfpdk mPp U;k;ky; dh [kaM U;k;ihB )kjk lquh tkuh pkfg, Fkh rFkk fo)ku ,dy U;k;k/kh’k us mls xzg.k rFkk eatwj dj vf/kdkfjrk laca/kh xyrh dh gSA blds )kjk izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk esa] vihykFkhZ us vuojr~ izFke dkuwuksa rFkk izFke v/;kns’kksa ds ‘kh?kz izdk’ku dh vko’;drk ij cy fn;k gS rFkk ;g f’kdk;r dh gS fd bl laca/k esa foyac fofHkUu ikB~;dzeksa esa izos’k izfdz;k dks izHkkfor dj jgk FkkA ;g fjV ;kfpdk dz-22021 lu~ 2011 ds iSjk dzekadksa 4] 5-2] 5-4 ls 5-9] 5-11] 6-3] 6-5] 6-8] 6-10] 6-14 rFkk 6-15 dh fo”k;&oLrq ls Li”V gSA izFke dkuwu rFkk izFke v/;kns’k ftuds izdk’ku dh ek¡x dh xbZ Fkh] fofHkUu laoxksZ ds fy, LFkkuksa ds vkj{k.k ds fofu;eu rFkk Nk=ksa ds izos’k rFkk muds ukekadu lfgr izos’k dh uhfr dh Fkh ppkZ djrs gSaA ;g vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 26¼1½¼>½ rFkk 28¼1½¼d½ dh vis{kk ds vuqlkj FkkA blfy,] fu;eksa ds fu;e 2¼7½¼³½ ds fuca/kuksa ds vuqlkj] fjV ;kfpdk mPp U;k;ky; dh [kaM U;k;ihB ds le{k lwphc) gksuh pkfg, FkhA ekeys dks fo)ku ,dy U;k;k/kh’k ds le{k lwphc) djus esa mPp U;k;ky; dh jftLVªh )kjk dh xbZ xyrh dk muds )kjk bls xzg.k rFkk eatwj dj ‘keu fd;k x;kA blfy,] vkns’k fnukad 6-1-2012 dks okil e¡xkuk gj izdkj ls U;k;ksfpr Fkk rkfd ekeyk [kaM U;k;kihB )kjk lquk tk ldsA
Singhvi, J. -- 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby he allowed the review petition filed by respondent No.1, recall order dated 6.1.2012 passed inWrit Petition No.22021/2011 and issued direction for listing of the same before the Division Bench.
3. The appellant was established under section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Evam Sanchalan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act’) as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Evam Sanchalan) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2011. In terms of section 9(2) of the Act, the appellant is deemed to have been incorporated with effect from 4.5.2011 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act was published in the official gazette.
4. After its establishment and incorporation, the appellant framed the First Statutes under section 26 and the First Ordinances under section 28 of the Act and submitted the same to the Madhya Pradesh Private University Regulatory Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’), which was established by the State Government under section 36(1) of the Act for the purpose of providing a regulatory mechanism at the State level and for working as an interface between the State Government and the Central regulatory bodies for the purpose of ensuring appropriate standards of teaching, examination, research, extension programme, protection of interest of students and reasonable service conditions of the employees. The First Ordinances of the appellant were approved by the Commission and were forwarded to the State Government vide letter dated 23.9.2011 for publication in the official gazette. The First Statutes framed by the appellant were provisionally approved by the Commission and sent to the State Government vide letter dated 24.10.2011 with a request that the same may be got examined from the Law Department and made available to the Commission with the amendment, if any. In that letter it was also mentioned that if no amendment was proposed by the State Government then the First Statutes be published in the official gazette as per the requirement of section 35 of the Act. The English translation of that letter, which has been filed with the special leave petition as Annexure P-6, is reproduced below :
“Madhya Pradesh Private University Regulatory Commission
Bhopal (M.P.)
No./M.P.P.U.R. Commission, Bhopal Date : 24.10.2011
To
The Chief Secretary
State of M.P.
Higher Education Department
Ministry, Bhopal
Sub : Publication of First Statutes presented by the Peoples University in the Gazette.
In compliance of the provisions of para 26(2) of M.P. Private University (Establishment and Control) Act, 2007, the First Statutes recommended by the Administrative Body of Peoples University and provisionally recommended by the Commission and its two attested copies are hereby attached and sent.
In this regard it is kindly requested that there is no legal advisor available in the Commission. Therefore, it would be proper to request from the legal department to carry out examination of these statutes and make available to the Commission through the State Government along with the amendment which has been presented, so that these amendments may be presented in the meeting of the commission and after receiving the recommendation of the commission these shall be sent for publication in the Gazette. If no amendment/suggestion is recommended by the legal department, then kindly oblige to get it published in the gazette under section 35 of the Act considering it recommended by the Commission in final form.
(Recommended by the Chairman)
Encl : Statutes in two copies.
Sd/- illegible
(Dr. P.K. Khare)
Secretary
Endorsement No.556/M.P.P.U.R. Commission, Bhopal
Dated : 24.10.2011
Copy to :
Registrar, Peoples University Bhanpur, Peoples Campus, Bhopal for necessary information.
Sd/- illegible
(Dr. P.K. Khare)
S
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.