CAV ORDER

Per P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice

1. The application put in by the Petitioner-University on 25.02.2019 for permission to commence various courses in Agriculture and allied sciences came to be rejected as per Annexure P/1 order dated 22.06.2019 issued by the 1st Respondent, pointing out that education in the field of Agriculture and allied sciences stands vested with the 4th Respondent-University as per the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (CG) Adhiniyam, 1987 (for short, 'the 1987 Act'). This made the Petitioner to challenge the said proceeding, simultaneously challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6 and 7 of the 1987 Act.

2. The prayers sought for in the writ petition are in the following terms:

"A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling for the record from the respondent authorities pertaining to the petitioners' case for its kind perusal.

B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue declaring Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, 1987 by which for the areas specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 Exclusive jurisdiction/ authority/power has been conferred on respondent No. 4 for instruction, teaching and training in agriculture and allied sciences, ultra vires to Constitution of India, Act of 1956 and also act of 2005, as amended upto date, and consequent thereto letter (Annexure P-1) thereby creating hurdles/complications in imparting education in agriculture and allied sciences in the petitioner No. 1 University and in the facts and circumstances of the case.

C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue restraining respondent State authorities, their agents, servants and employees from causing any hindrance in imparting education in petitioner No. 1 University including admitting students, conferring degrees on them on successful completion of courses including in the course of agricultural and allied sciences and acknowledging the degrees conferred on them at par with degree in the said courses by respondent No. 4 University.

D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded."

3. The challenge is mainly on the ground that there is an encroachment from the part of the State into the field occupied by the Central Government and the Central Legislation, particularly infringing Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short, 'the 1956 Act'). It is contended that the 1987 Act is confined only to three Revenue Divisions of 'Raipur, Bilaspur and Bastar' in the State, whereas the State consists of two more Divisions by name 'Surguja' and 'Durg' and that the State is not competent to enact any law which is territorial in operation. Since nothing is mentioned with regard to the students/Institutions in the Durg and Surguja Divisions, there is a clear instance of discrimination as well and the people/students in the said two Divisions are put to utmost hardships. Since the Petitioner- University constituted under the Chhattisgarh Private Universities (Establishment and Operation) Act, 2005 (as amended in 2018) (for short, 'the 2005 Act') is having jurisdiction all over the State of Chhattisgarh, the application could not have been rejected, especially when the Divisions 'Durg' and 'Surguja' stand intact/untouched by the statute. According to the Petitioner, it is a subject matter connected with 'Higher Education' and coming under the Entry 66 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule; which will override the Entries 14 and 32 of List II (State List). It is contended that the Central Act i.e. the 1956 Act will prevail over the State Act and hence, Entry 25 of the List III (Concurrent List) cannot be pressed into service. It is also pointed out that Section 6 and 7 of the 1987 Act are violative of the 'fundamental rights', also since it fixes territorial limits and no valid object is to be achie