Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5698 of 2000 ====================================================== Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Millat Nagar, Rampara, Katihar, through its Secretary, Md. Iftekhar Alam, son of Haji Md. Nariruddin, permanent resident of village Nimaul, P.A. Azamnagar, District Katihar. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. B. N. Mandal University, Lalunagar, Madhepura through its Registrar 2. The Vice Chancellor, B. N. Mandal University, Lalunagar, Madhepura 3. The Registrar, B. N. Mandal University, Lalu Nagar, Madhepura 4. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 5. The Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, National Council for Teachers Education, 15, Nilkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhuwaneshwar .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Karuna Nath Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, G.P. 14 and Mr. Subodh Kumar, A.C. to G.P. 14 For N.C.T.E. : Mr. S. N. Pathak, Sr.S.C.G. For B.N.Mandal University: M/s B. K. Jha, Sr. Advocate, Abhya Kumar and R. C. Singh, Advocates. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 20 11-09-2013 By this writ petition, Muslim Minority Ahmadia B. Ed. College, Katihar under the B. N. Mandal University has
Legal Reasoning
challenged the notification of the University dated 19.05.2000 (Annexure 1). Effect of the said notification is that the affiliation granted by the University to the petitioner-Institution in respect of B.Ed. Course was cancelled from the date it was so granted effectively making it retrospective. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this could not have been retrospectively, much less without hearing the petitioner-Institution in this regard. Patna High Court CWJC No.5698 of 2000 (20) dt.11-09-2013 2/6 2. Before proceeding further, the chequered history of this case may be noted. After the aforesaid notification was issued, this writ petition was filed in the month of July, 2000. As the said notification had the effect on the students as well, both past and present, separate writ petitions were filed by the students
Decision
simultaneously. While the writ petitions of the students were being heard, this writ petition by the petitioner-Institution was allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution. It was dismissed in 2004, but was restored soon thereafter. It was then taken up for hearing once again and once again in 2007 it was dismissed by the then Chief Justice for non-prosecution. A restoration application was then filed in the year 2009 and ultimately it was restored in the year 2010. Why this fact is relevant is that in the meantime the writ petitions filed by the students were taken up. They were dismissed by a Single Judge of this Court. Letters Patent Appeals by the students were preferred. There were similar institutions and all those cases of the students were taken up together and the writ petitions of the students were partially allowed by a Division Bench in appeal by judgment dated 05.01.2007, since reported in 2007 (2) P.L.J.R. Page 682 (Satish Kumar vrs. V.C., Bhupendra Nr. Mandal University). Evidently, the petitioner- Institution was not eager to contest the matter and was awaiting Patna High Court CWJC No.5698 of 2000 (20) dt.11-09-2013 3/6 and watching the proceedings in the collateral matter of the students. 3. Another fact that may be noted here is that when the aforesaid writ petition was filed, neither the State Government nor the National Council for Teachers Education (for brevity `N.C.T.E.’) or its offices were made party. They were necessary party. It was only subsequently that they were added as party on directions of the Court. As would be seen, these facts are relevant when we examine the facts of the petitioner-Institution. Fact relating to this institution has been separately noted by the Division Bench in the case of Satish Kumar itself (supra), to which reference shall be made at the appropriate stage. It appears, pursuant to application purportedly made by the College, the State Government granted temporary recognition to the College on 16.09.1996 with retrospective effect for sessions 1987-1988 to 1991-1992. It received permanent recognition from the State Government for the session 1992-1993 onwards on 12.06.1997. Pursuant to recognition by the Government, the University granted permanent affiliation on 16.07.1997 for the session 1992-1993. The Eastern Regional Committee of N.C.T.E. allegedly, by letter dated 20.05.1998, allowed the College to continue as before as per Rules of the University and finally granted provisional recognition Patna High Court CWJC No.5698 of 2000 (20) dt.11-09-2013 4/6 up to 2000-2001. 4. It appears, at that stage, the Hon’ble Chancellor received some reports with regard to various minority institutions set up in Darbhanga District under L.N. Mithila University and Katihar District under B. N. Mandal University. Minority institutions set up shops in various branches. The Chancellor constituted a High Powered Committee to investigate the institutions and submit a report. Report disclosed high level scandals. Institutions, which had no building and nowhere in all, had been granted permanent affiliation. They were virtually ghost institutions. This led the Hon’ble Chancellor to refer the matter to the State Vigilance, which, after preliminary enquiry, instituted formal cases against the institutions. These included the petitioner- Institution in respect of the very present case as well. It is pursuant to these exercises that the University then issued the impugned notification withdrawing the affiliation as granted, which is now being termed as retrospective cancellation of affiliation. 5. On behalf of N.C.T.E. and on behalf of the University, as also on behalf of the State, what is submitted is that an affiliation fraudulently obtained is no affiliation in the eye of law and that does not give any right to a person, much less a right to be heard, before that affiliation is withdrawn. It is well-settled Patna High Court CWJC No.5698 of 2000 (20) dt.11-09-2013 5/6 that fraud vitiates all actions. Before the Division Bench in the case of Satish Kumar (supra), while dealing with the case of the petitioner-Institution, these are some of the facts that have been noted in relation to the petitioner-Institution:- “ 34…….Even in that regard it is to be noted that the allegations against the College are of the usual kind that it was able to obtain recognition/affiliation even though it was not in existence and/or it had inadequate infrastructure, below the prescribed norms…….. . 43…….It was discovered that the petitioners’ placed reliance on a letter purportedly issued by the Eastern Regional Committee under memo no. 4603 dated 1.10.1997 by which the College was allowed to continue until disposal of its final application but on verification it was found to be fake since the letter of that number was dispatched on 31.10.1997 to Dr. M. S. Chatterjee, the then Director, S.C.R.T., West Bengal. Mr. Pathak submitted that from Annexure A to the counter affidavit it was evident that the College indulged in fraud and forgery etc. I would not like to make any comment with regard to the letter bearing no. 4603, dated 1.10.1997 since it is already a subject of criminal case….” 6. From the facts aforesaid, it could be clear that there was nothing except paper name of the institution when State granted provisional recognition and that too with retrospective effect. So far as N.C.T.E. is concerned, it is categorically pleaded Patna High Court CWJC No.5698 of 2000 (20) dt.11-09-2013 6/6 that the documents purported to be issued by them permitting the institutions to continue were all forged letters and this had led the N.C.T.E. to issue public notice including the name of the petitioner-Institution as an unauthorized institution. This was all based on fraud deliberately committed by the petitioner- Institution. In view of these serious allegations and in view of the fact that criminal prosecution is pending against the management of the petitioner-Institution, employees of the University and employees of the N.C.T.E., I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner- Institution. 7. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) MPS/-