High Court
Facts
WP 3286 24.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 3286 OF 2024WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5793/2024 IN WP/3286/2024Ratnadeep Medical Foundation and Research Centre, Ratnapur,Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar,Through its Secretary,Dr. Varsha Bhaskar More,Age 48 years, Occ. BHMS, MD HomeopathyR/o. Ratnadeep Hospital, Nagar, Road,Near New Bus Stand, Jamkhed,Dist. Ahmednagar.…PetitionerVERSUS1)The Collector, Ahmednagar.2)The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jamkhed.3)The Tahsildar, Jamkhed.4)The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Karjat.5)The Directorate of Technical Education,Maharashtra State, Mumbai.6)The Registrar,Savitribai Phule Pune University,Ganeshkhind Road, Pune.7)Satyashodhan Samitee,Through its Chairman,Dr. Sandeep Palve,C/o. Deputy Registrar, Savitribai PhulePune University, Ganeshkhind Road,Pune.…Respondents …Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.R. DhordeA.G.P. for Respondent nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. S.P. JoshiAdvocate for Respondent nos. 6 & 7 : Mr. A.R. JoshiAdvocate for Applicant in CA/5793/2024 : Mr. M.V. Salunke h/f Mr. V.D.Salunke1/11 WP 3286 24.odtCORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE: 27.09.2024JUDGMENT : ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. At the joint requestof the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.2.The facts leading to filing of the writ petition can be summarized asunder :(a)The petitioner-Trust has been running educational institutes since theyear 2000. In the year 2010 it was accorded permission by the MaharashtraNursing Council for starting Auxiliary Nursing and Midwifery course (ANM).In the year 2011, General Nursing and Midwifery course (GNM) was alsopermitted to be started. In the year 2015 with the permission of theMaharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS) B.Sc. Nursing Coursewas started. Subsequently by the permission of MUHS even BHMS coursewas started in the year 2017. (b)The petitioner was also permitted to start degree and diploma coursesin pharmacy by respondent no. 5–Directorate of Technical Education andnecessary permission and affiliation was granted by respondent no. 6-Savitribai Phule Pune University. It is in respect of these courses that thepresent issue pertains to.(c) Subsequently, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University alsogranted permission and affiliation to the petitioner for starting degree anddiploma courses in pharmacy in the year 2021-2022.(d)It is alleged by the petitioner that due to political rivalry and at theinstigation of political opponents, the students indulged in agitation when2/11 WP 3286 24.odtthe institute demanded reimbursement of the fees, which some students hadreceived in their respective accounts by way of scholarship. In the light ofcontinued agitations and motivated by political reasons, respondent no. 6-University constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. SandeepPalve, the then Deputy Registrar of the University and arrayed herein as arespondent no. 7. The premises of the college wherein diploma and degreecourses under pharmacy were being run were sealed including thedocuments and laboratory on 08.03.2024. (e)Since the last date for filling in the form for the examination wasreaching and some students were unable to fill in the forms, some how thetime was extended and these other students were allowed to fill in the formsthrough another college being run by the petitioner-Trust.(f)By the first impugned communication dated 12.03.2024 (Exh. F), thepetitioner and the Principal of the College were called upon to explaingiving reference to the enquiry conducted by respondent no. 7 that primafacie it was revealed that the institute had committed breach of terms andconditions for grant of affiliation provided for in Section 108 of theMaharashtra Public Universicities Act, 2016 (hereinafter ‘the UniversitiesAct’), calling upon to explain within eight days as to why consequentialaction should not be initiated against it.(g)The petitioner-Trust replied to this notice by its communication dated23.03.2024, making its stand clear, including as to how due to the agitation,the Tahsildar had sealed the entire premises and as to how in spite ofrepeated request Tahsildar Jamkhed was not desealing the premises and asto how the Chairman of the Trust was falsely implicated in a crime underSection 354A of the Indian Penal Code.(h)Independently, even respondent no. 1-District Collector, Ahmednagar,under his signature constituted a committee by order dated 13.03.2024, forundertaking a fact finding enquiry in respect of the allegations against the3/11 WP 3286 24.odtinstitute and its Chairman.3.In the wake of above events, the petition was filed on 26.02.2024,initially challenging the action of sealing of the premises and the noticedated 12.03.2024 (Exh. F). A Writ of prohibition was also solicitedpreventing all the respondents in obstructing the petitioner-Trust in runningthe institute and for issuance of a direction to unseal the premises and toallow the petitioner-Trust to have an access.4.By the order dated 27.03.2024, respondent no. 3-Tahsildar wasdirected to remove the seal and handover the keys to the petitioner under apanchnama. Simultaneously, the petitioner was also directed to submit itsreply to the impugned notice dated 12.03.2024 (Exh. F) 5.In the meantime, respondent no. 6-University issued a general circulardated 24.05.2024, to all the colleges running pharmacy courses like thepetitioner for submission of online applications or continuation of theaffiliation for the academic year 2024-2025 (Exh. O). The petitioner, by itscommunication dated 25.05.2024, informed respondent no. 6-University itsinability to fill in the proposal, as it was imperative to be accompanied by aself appraisal form but it was unable to do it due to sealing of the premises.It is the stand of the petitioner that though pursuant to the order of thisCourt the office premises were unsealed but the laboratory and record wasnot unsealed and it was unable to submit necessary application for extensionof affiliation in time. It requested respondent no. 6-University to directunsealing of the laboratory and the record. However, the respondent no. 6did not respond.6.It is the stand of the petitioner that though it was granted affiliationon year to year basis for the pharmacy courses by respondent no. 6-University since year 2018-2019 continuously, instead of extendingcooperation in the peculiar circumstances, by a communication dated09.07.2024, the University informed the petitioner that earlier affiliation4/11 WP 3286 24.odthad come to an end on 30.06.2024, and directing it not to admit studentsfor the academic year 2024-2025. It also directed transfer of the students ofthe previous years studying in II, III and IV year, to other colleges.Immediately, on the very day that is on 07.09.2024, by moving acommunication (Exh. S), the petitioner sought permission from respondentno. 6-University for admitting students to the first year by giving affiliation.7.In the wake of such supervening events, the petitioner was permittedto carryout necessary amendment in putting up challenge to the letter dated09.07.2024 (Exh. R) and to add a prayer clause seeking direction in theform of writ of mandamus to respondent no. 6-University to unseal thepremises and to grant affiliation, by the order dated 22.07.2024.8.In the meantime, respondent no. 6-University through its DeputyRegistrar Academic Section (Affiliation Unit) filed affidavit in reply on behalfof respondent nos. 6 and 7 on 29.07.2024. It justified the action of issuanceof notice dated 12.03.2024 (Exh. F) and the subsequent communicationdated 09.07.2024 (Exh. R). It was stated that by resolution no. 120, theManagement Council of the University had resolved to initiate appropriateaction for imposition of penalty/punishment in the light of statute framedunder Section 72(10) of the Universities Act, the Maharashtra PublicUniversities (Penalties to be imposed upon erring affiliated colleges/recognized institutions) Uniform Statute, 2018 (hereinafter ‘Statute of2018’). It was also resolved that since there was breach of the terms andconditions subject to which affiliation was granted under Section 108 of theUniversities Act, and a case was made out under clause 2(1) and 2(10) ofthe Statute of 2018 it recommended prohibition against the petitioner inadmitting the students for the first year of 2024-2025 academic year.9.Additional affidavit was also filed by the same Deputy Registrar onbehalf of respondent no. 6 and 7 on 21.09.2024, justifying its action ofissuing notice. It was stated as to how there was violation of terms and5/11 WP 3286 24.odtconditions subject to which the affiliation was granted.10.In view of such supervening events and the stand of the respondentno. 6-University, the petitioner-Trust prayed for ad interim relief. By theorder dated 06.09.2024, in the wake of resolution No. 120 passed by theManagement Council (sic) the communication dated 09.07.2024 (Exh. R) tothe extent of its second paragraph, directing transfer of the students of theprevious years, was stalled. In the light of such sequence of events, it wasalso directed that the writ petition itself would be heard finally on24.09.2024 but could be heard today.11.We have heard the extensive arguments of the learned advocate of thepetitioner, the learned A.G.P., the learned advocate for respondent nos. 6 and7 and even the learned advocate Mr. Salunke for the students, who havefiled Civil Application No. 5793/2024 seeking intervention. Even they wereallowed to file an affidavit. Accordingly, their learned advocate tendersacross the bar the affidavit filed for and on behalf of all the intervenorsopposing the petition.12.As can be gathered, except the allegations and counter allegations inrespect of the alleged episode of molestation, for which the President of thepetitioner-Trust was prosecuted and the stand of the institute and thestudents in respect of reimbursement of the tuition fees and operation of theinstitute, so far as the other events (supra) are concerned, there has beenno dispute.13.Admittedly, the petitioner-Trust has been running B. Pharmacy andD.Pharmacy courses with the recognition and affiliation granted byrespondent no. 6-University since 2018-2019, on year to year basis.14.Though there is reference to the breach of terms and conditionssubject to which the affiliation was granted under Section 108 of theUniversities Act, the first impugned notice (Exh. F) dated 12.03.2024, does6/11 WP 3286 24.odtnot seek to undertake any process for cancellation of affiliation as iscontemplated under Section 120 of the Universities Act. Neither the noticecontains any such indication nor is there any such stand of the University inthe three affidavits in reply.15.Independently, as is contemplated under Section 120, the impugnednotice (Exh. F) would not fit into the requirements of that provision whichcontemplates at least a 30 days notice to the institute, calling upon it toshow cause as to why steps shall not be taken for de-recognition orde-affiliation. The notice (Exh. F) does not indicate and disclose intentionof respondent no. 6-University to undertake any such process for de-affiliation or de-recognition. It also does not give time of 30 days, as ismandated by that provision. Besides, as laid down in Section 120 the actionhas to be initiated by the Board of Deans, whereas the impugned notice,apart from the fact that it does not indicate that it was being issued pursuantto any decision of the Board of Deans, is signed by the Deputy Registrar(Affiliation Section) of respondent no. 6-University. Therefore, it would notfit into the parameters laid down under Section 120 of the Universities Act,even if it is assumed that the circumstances were such that respondent no. 6-University was called upon to act pursuant to some agitation against thepetitioner and its Chairman. The impugned notice dated 12.03.2024 (Exh.F) would not be sustainable on the touchstone of the requirements ofSection 120 of the Universities Act. 16.Admittedly, respondent no. 6 University has, in the third affidavit inreply has disclosed the action of sealing of the premises and has tried tojustify it by the second impugned communication dated 09.07.2024 (Exh.R), as an action in the purported exercise of the powers under Statute of2018, in the light of resolution No. 120 of the Management Council.17.A careful perusal of the Statue of 2018 reveals that it provides forimposition of penalty/punishment on the institutes concerned, in case of7/11
Legal Reasoning
WP 3286 24.odtbreach of terms and conditions subject to which affiliation is granted underSection 108. Clause 2 gives a list of alleged misconduct/ mismanagement/lapses in the matter of examinations etc. Breach of terms and condition ofaffiliation under Section 108 is covered by sub clause 1. Sub clause 2 statesabout conduct of the institute having potential to damage reputation of theUniversity and is affecting standard of the education. Sub clause 10 statesthe management committee has to prima facie reach a conclusion aboutbreach of the terms and conditions of affiliation the institute and is liable forimposition of certain punishment. Clause 3 of the Statute of 2018 providesfor the penalties to be imposed like censure, fine, prohibition, suspension ofaffiliation etc.18.Clause 4 then contemplates and provides for a procedure to befollowed and lays down that after receipt of a complaint when theManagement Council prima facie arrives at conclusion that the institutionhas committed breach or has acted in the manner prescribed under clause 2,the Board of Deans shall issue a notice to the institute extending 15 daystime for submitting the response to the Pro Vice Chancellor. Sub clause 2 ofclause 4 then lays down that if the management admits the allegedmisconduct or is unable to give any satisfactory explanation, the Board ofDeans shall submit necessary proposal/report to the Management councilfor imposition of adequate penalty/punishment. Under sub clause 3 ofclause 4 if the management does not admit the imputations, theManagement Council has to appoint a committee for undertaking enquiry.Such committee, by extending adequate opportunity to the management asalso the University is expected to submit its report within 30 days to theManagement Council expressly recording its opinion in respect of each ofthe imputations.19.Based on such a report, the Management Council can decide thepenalty/punishment. Under sub clause 6 of clause 4, depending upon thedecision of the Management Council, provides that the Board of Deans8/11 WP 3286 24.odtwould issue a final show cause notice to the institute as to why thepunishment/penalty determined by the Management Council shall not beimposed and extend 15 days time to submit the reply. The Board of Deans byconsidering the explanation if any, would impose the punishment/penalty.20.Having borne in mind the modalities prescribed under Statute of2018, the first impugned notice dated 12.03.2024, even did not disclose thatthe exercise as mentioned therein was being undertaken on the decision ofthe Management Council and was being processed through the Board ofDeans.21.Even the second impugned communication dated 09.07.2024, doesnot refer to the Statute of 2018 and ex facie directly imposes a sort ofpenalty/punishment contemplated under the Statute of 2018 andcommunicates the decision prohibiting the petitioner from admittingstudents for the first year for the academic year 2024-2025, and also directsdecision of the governing council of the University for shifting of thestudents studying with the petitioner’s institution in II, III and IV years of therespective courses. It does not refer to any enquiry having been conductedas is contemplated under the Statute of 2018, any decision of theManagement Council or that of the Board of Deans much less speaks aboutany opportunity having been extended to the petitioner by either of thesebodies and in the light of the provisions of the Statute of 2018, the actionwas being taken. Even the affidavits in reply are conspicuously silent aboutnecessary compliance having been made by taking precaution to follow themodalities prescribed under the Statute of 2018.22.Needless to state that it is trite, that when a statute expects andprovides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be donestrictly in the same manner or not at all. The circumstances are writ large todemonstrate that the entire process of imposition of penalty under theStatute of 2018, for the alleged breach of terms and conditions subject to9/11 WP 3286 24.odtwhich affiliation is granted under Section 108 of the Universities Act, havebeen given a complete go by. We, therefore, have not even slightest ofhesitation in concluding that both the impugned notice/communicationdated 12.03.2023 (Exh. F) and 09.07.2024 (Exh. R) are not sustainable inlaw and are liable to be quashed and set aside.23.These conclusions of ours are not to be taken as if we have made anycomment on the disputed facts as regards several allegations andimputations being levelled against the petitioner-Trust. We are merelydemonstrating that the decision making process followed by respondent no.6-University is faulty and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It wouldalways be open for it to follow appropriate procedure as is discussed hereinabove and take it to the logical end, strictly in accordance with law.24.True it is, as is being submitted by the learned advocate for theintervenors-students, there could be several reasons for them being nothappy to undertake further education in the petitioner institution. Some ofthem could have been, pursuant to the impugned action andcommunication, admitted in some other colleges. It would be for therespondent no. 4-Director of Technical Education and respondent no. 6-University to take appropriate decision in respect of these students. They aremerely intervenors before us and it would always be open for them toagitate their own cause independently. We can only decide the petition onits merits and to the extent possible for this Court in exercise of thejurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That cannotprevent us from exercising the jurisdiction irrespective of the consequences,which would ensue and could have a bearing on the rights of the students.25.So far as the remaining prayer of the petitioner-Trust regarding itsinability to tender the requisite application seeking affiliation for theacademic year 2024-2025, irrespective of the facts and circumstancesregarding which there is no dispute, about sealing of its premises and the10/11
Decision
WP 3286 24.odtlaboratory, record, as a cause for it not to submit the requisite application intime, even otherwise, the learned advocate for respondent no. 6-University,on instructions, submits that the time for grant of affiliation has beenextended and if the petitioner makes necessary application, respondentno. 6-University would process it on its own merits and in accordance withlaw.26.In the light of above, the writ petition is allowed.27.The impugned communications dated 12.03.2024 (Exh. F) and09.07.2024 (Exh. R) are quashed and set aside.28.Respondent no. 6-University shall permit and process the applicationof the petitioner seeking affiliation for the academic year 2024-2025 on itsown merits and in accordance with law, within two weeks.29.Respondent no. 4-Director of Technical Education and respondent no.6 University shall take appropriate decision in respect of the students, whohave already been transferred to some other colleges in light of theimpugned communication dated 09.07.2024, as expeditiously as possible.30.Rule is made absolute in above terms.31.Civil Application No. 5793/2024 is disposed of. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)mkd/-11/11