Aman Ramdas Andhale and others v. Ratnadeep Medical Foundation and Research Centre Through its Secretary and others
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 9306 / 2024+IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 9306 OF 2024Ratnadeep Medical Foundation andResearch Centre, Ratnapur,Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar,Through its Secretary,Dr. Varsha Bhaskar More,Age : 48 years, Occu. : Medical Practitioner,R/o Ratnadeep Hospital, Nagar Road,Near New Bus Stand, Jamkhed,Dist. Ahmednagar.. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.2] The Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai3] Maharashtra State Technical Education Board, Regional Office, Chht. Sambhajinagar4] The Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University, Lonere, Tq. Raigad, Dist. Raigad.. RespondentsWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10499 OF 2024 IN WP/9306/2024(Aman Ramdas Andhale and others Vs. Ratnadeep Medical Foundation and Research Centre Through its Secretary and others)WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10567 OF 2024Ratnadeep Medical Foundation andResearch Centre, Ratnapur,Sanchalit Ratnadeep College of Pharmacy,Ratnapur, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar,Through its Secretary,Dr. Varsha Bhaskar More,Age : 48 years, Occu. : B.H.M.S., M.D.,
Legal Reasoning
2 WP / 9306 / 2024+Homeopathy,R/o Ratnadeep Hospital, Nagar Road,Near New Bus Stand, Jamkhed,Dist. Ahmednagar.. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.2] The Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai – 400 001.3] Maharashtra State Technical Education Board, Through its Secretary, Mumbai4] The Secretary, Common Admission Regulating Authority, Mumbai5] Commissioner and Competent Authority, State CET Cell, Maharashtra State, Mumbai 8th Floor, Excelsior Theatre Building, A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.. Respondents...Advocate for petitioners in both WPs : Mr. D.S. Bagul AGP for the respondent – State : Mrs. P.J. BharadAdvocate for the respondent no. 3 in both WPs : Mr. S.S. JadhavarAdvocate for respondent no. 4 in WP/9306/2024 : Mr. Avinash S. BorulkarAdvocate for respondent no.4 in WP/10567/2024 : Mr. M.D. NarwadkarAdvocate for applicant in CA/10499/2024 : Mr. M.V. Salunke ... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.RESERVED ON : 14 OCTOBER 2024PRONOUNCED ON : 14 NOVEMBER 2024JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Heard.
Decision
3 WP / 9306 / 2024+2.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGPand learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service. 3.At the joint request of both the sides, both these mattershave been heard together and are being disposed of by this commonjudgment and order to avoid rigmarole, since the issues involved areexactly the same albeit in different form as would be discussedhereinafter.4.The petitioner in both these petitions is the sameeducational institute running different courses affiliated to differentuniversities. The issue / challenge in both these petitions is to theaction of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University(hereinafter the University) which is arrayed as respondent no. 4 inwrit petition no. 9306 of 2024 whereby, by the impugnedcommunication dated 12-08-2024 (Exhibit – J), resorting to section 57of the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University Act, 2014(University Act of 2014) it has withdrawn the affiliation of thepetitioner’s B.Pharmacy course. It is also challenging the order passedby respondent no. 3 – Maharashtra State Technical Education Board(hereinafter the Board) date 12-07-2024 and communication dated 18-07-2024, whereby under section 32 of the Maharashtra State Board ofTechnical Education Act, 1997 (MSBTE Act, 1997) it has withdrawn 4 WP / 9306 / 2024+affiliation of its D.Pharmacy course and ordered transfer of in all 88students undertaking education in it, to some other colleges mentionedtherein. To the extent of Diploma in Pharmacy course (Code No.2042), writ petition no. 10567 of 2024 has been preferred. Thepetitioner is also soliciting a writ of mandamus, directing the Universityand the Board to restore the affiliations and to include its name in theongoing Centralized Admission Process for the academic year 2024-25and to restore the students ordered to be shifted by the impugnedcommunication / order.5.Mr. Bagul for the petitioners would take us through thepapers and would submit that prompted by political motives, thechairman of the petitioner / trust - society was sought to be implicatedin a matter of alleged molestation and though the FIR was lodged afterlapse of more than a year of the alleged incident, the governmentmachinery moved swiftly to implicate him and in a high-handedmanner. The Collector and Tahsildar also obliged it. The specialinvestigation team was constituted under the guise of fact findinginquiry. The entire premises of the college was forcibly locked by theTahsildar. It was unable to take necessary steps for continuation ofaffiliation. The apex body i.e. Pharmacy Council of India grantedrecognition to the petitioner’s pharmacy courses even for the currentacademic year. Though the role of the respondents, the University and 5 WP / 9306 / 2024+the Board is limited, they have resorted to arbitrary and high handedaction. No proper procedure for withdrawing the affiliation wasfollowed. The petitioner was not extended appropriate opportunity toexplain the facts and circumstances pitted against it. The explanationsoffered by it were not objectively considered and in a high-handedmanner and motivated by political reasons, the impugned decisionshave been taken.6.Mr. Bagul would submit that the petitioner – institution hasbeen running for several years without any objection from anybody.But mala fide and prompted by political reasons, the respondents, theUniversity and the Board have taken drastic action. The politicalinfluence is evident even from the fact that in respect of some othercourses affiliated to Savitribai Phule Pune University (SPPU), thatuniversity had also taken prompt and similar action of de-affiliation.Even Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS) has beenacting against the petitioners’ interest. De-affiliation may be quashedand set aside and the respondents, the University and the Board bedirected to take appropriate steps so as to continue the affiliation andallow the petitioner – institute to participate in the ongoing admissionprocess of Pharmacy courses.7.Per contra, the learned AGP, learned advocateMr. Borulkar for the university and Mr. Jadhavar for the Board and 6 WP / 9306 / 2024+Mr. Narwadkar and the admission regulating authority, respectively, andalso the learned advocate Mr. Salunke for the intervenors, unanimouslyoppose the petitions, by adverting our attention to the factors leading tode-affiliation. The president of the trust was implicated for havingmolested a girl student, there was an approver amongst the students,several colleges affiliated to different universities and boards werebeing run in the same building by changing the display boards as andwhen there was inspection by the authorities, there was also allegationabout recovery of additional charges / fees. Faced with the situation,the Collector had taken initiative and appointed a fact findingcommittee which prepared a report.8.Finding that there was utter lack of infrastructure andfaculty, besides the students were being harassed, steps were takenby both, the University as well as the Board for de-affiliation. Showcause notices were issued and following due process of law, thepetitioner – institute’s running B.Pharmacy and D.Pharmacy courseswere de-affiliated and consequent orders for accommodating thestudents undertaking education in those courses was initiated. Petitioner - institute cannot invoke the limited jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution of India.9.We have considered the rival submissions and pursuedthe papers. 7 WP / 9306 / 2024+10.At the outset, it is necessary to emphasize that these beingpetitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the scope for thisCourt to undertake judicial review of the impugned decisions, islimited. We can only examine sustainability and legality of the decisionmaking process and cannot address to the factual disputes relating tothe alleged lack of infrastructure, lack of faculty and harassment ofstudents, physical as well as mental, pitted against the petitioner -institute. 11.Admittedly, the B.Pharmacy course being run by thepetitioner is affiliated to the respondent - University whose functioningis regulated by the University Act of 2014, whereas the D.Pharmacycourses being run by it are affiliated to the respondent - Board whosefunctioning is regulated by the MSBTE Act, 1997.12.To being with, one needs to bear in mind the fact thatadmittedly, both the courses of Pharmacy i.e. B.Pharmacy andD.Pharmacy would be under aegis of the Pharmacy Council of India,which is the apex body responsible for maintaining the standard ofeducation in the field of Pharmacy. Admittedly, petitioner – institute hasbeen running these courses with requisite permission and recognitionby the Pharmacy Council of India till the last academic year i.e. 2023-24. 8 WP / 9306 / 2024+13. Admittedly, till last 2 - 3 months of the last academic year,there was absolutely no grievance of anybody, either the students orthe faculty and even at no point of time, the University and the Boardwere having any objection in petitioner - institute running the Pharmacycourses. Everything seems to have happened from March 2024 on-wards. Admittedly, it is at the instance of the Hon’ble Member of theLegislative Assembly, that the revenue administration was called uponto intervene and prompted thereby, the Collector of the district movedin action and the premises of the petitioner - institute was sealed by theTahsildar. Pursuant to the order of this Court in writ petition no. 3842 of2024 dated 27-03-2024, the premises were de-sealed. Evenaccording to the respondents, the inspection carried out by thecommittee appointed by the District Collector leading to the sealing ofthe premises, was the genesis for the subsequent impugned actionsregarding de-affiliation and transfer of the students. 14.We cannot object to the people’s representative taking uplead in the agitation. We are simply pointing out this circumstance todemonstrate that independently, the University and even the Board, ontheir own, had not initiated any action and were comfortable in runningof the Pharmacy courses by the petitioner - institute for all theseprevious years. They had never raised any objection as regards thequality of education and the infrastructure. Again, we do not intend to 9 WP / 9306 / 2024+take up the factual disputes being raised by the respondents, theUniversity and the Board as regards the lack of infrastructure as well aslack of faculty and even those may be the consideration which theUniversity and the Board as also the Pharmacy Council of India wouldbe keen to examine. We are merely demonstrating that the Pharmacycourses being run by the petitioner – institute, are being run withoutany objection by these authorities and everything has begun at the endof the previous academic year. It is in the light of these peculiar factsand circumstances, even if the University and the Board were intendingto undertake a process of de-affiliation, they were bound by themodalities prescribed under the relevant provisions of the respectiveActs, viz. Section 57 of the University Act of 2014 and section 32 of theMSBTE Act, 1997.15.As far as section 57 of the University Act of 2014, it isnecessary to observe at the outset that for the reasons best known tothe University, it has not filed any reply on affidavit. We are, therefore,left with the averments in the petitions, as are being substantiated bydocuments and the oral submissions of the learned advocateMr. Borulkar, representing the University. 16.As per section 57 of the University Act of 2014, it isimperative for the University to indicate its intention to undertake aprocess of de-affiliation by issuing requisite notice to the institution to 10 WP / 9306 / 2024+show cause by putting forth the grounds which weighed with it inundertaking the process. Going by the papers produced with thepetitions, a fact finding committee was constituted by the University byits communication dated 08-03-2024, consisting of four members andthe committee submitted its report to the University on 09-03-2024(Exhibit - G). This report, inter alia reads that the committee visitedthe premises along with the concerned Tahsildar, Police Inspector,students’ representative, local activist and journalists on 09-03-2024around 11.00 am. It mentions that the committee members had to waitat the gate for couple of hours and with the intervention of theTahsildar, the gates were opened. None of the establishment washaving labs for their use. Six laboratories were already sealed by acommittee of Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune (SPPU), threeclassrooms, 1 auditorium and 1 computer laboratory underdevelopment could be seen and the infrastructure was insufficient torun a Pharmacy undergraduate programme as per the PharmacyCouncil of India norms. It was then reported that the faculty and otherstaff was insufficient. No chemicals / glassware / equipments wereavailable etc. Conspicuously, this additional information regarding lackof faculty and staff, non-availability of chemicals etc. charging ofexorbitant fees under different heads, were all expressly stated to bereported on the basis of the information supplied by the students whowere making grievance. Which means that those were not the facts 11 WP / 9306 / 2024+actually experienced / noticed, with any direct knowledge, by themembers of committee but were being reported having been told bythe agitating students. 17.Conspicuously, the petitioner - institute by its responsedated 11-03-2024 (paperbook page 78) had expressly informed theUniversity that on 08-03-2024 there was Mahashivratri holiday,09-03-2024 was a Saturday and 10-03-2024 was a Sunday, work ofrenovation was being undertaken and the articles from the labs wereshifted elsewhere due to which there was no staff and the laboratorieswere not functioning at the time of inspection. Additionally, by anothercommunication dated 26-03-2024, time was sought to give elaborateand detail response. The University then served the show cause noticedated 11-06-2024 in purported exercise of the powers under section 57of the University Act, 2014. By communication dated 11-07-2024, thepetitioner gave detailed point-wise reply (Exhibit - I) to all theobjections being raised regarding operation and functioning of theinstitution. Additionally, permission was sought for transfer of thestudents from the B.Pharmacy course affiliated to the University to asimilar course being run by the petitioner - institution which wasaffiliated to SPPU. However, by the impugned order dated 12-08-2024,the University withdrew the affiliation (Exhibit – J). 12 WP / 9306 / 2024+18.Substance of this impugned communication withdrawingthe affiliation reads that pursuant to the show cause notice served tothe petitioner - institution and after receipt of its explanation, thePlanning and Evaluation (Monitoring) Board of the University on16-07-2024, resolved as under :- “The explanation given by the institute for the show causenotice dated 11/06/2024 is not at all satisfactory. Also it is notrealistic and is far away from the reality observed by the factfinding committees. It was also observed that as per therequest from the college for NOC of transferring the studentsto other institutes, the college has expressed their inability torun the college. Therefore, the Board resolved to put up thecopy notice and the reply by the institute to the AcademicCouncil for withdrawal of affiliation granted to RatnadeepPharmacy College Ratnapur-Jamkhed as per clause 57 (3) ofthe DBATU Act 2014."It further reads about resolution on Item no. 4.1 of the AcademicCouncil of the University dated 22-07-2024, as under :- "After detailed discussions and deliberations, as per thesection 57 of the DBATU Act 2014. The Academic Councilhaving regard to the interest of students studying in thecolleges, recommends to the Vice Chancellor to withdrawthe affiliation given to Ratnadeep Pharmacy CollegeRatnapur and the Vice-Chancellor shall, thereafter, proceedto implement the recommendations in consultation with theExecutive Council."It then refers to the resolution on Item no. 3 of the Executive Council, inits meeting dated 30-07-2024, as under :-"The members of the Executive Council have taken noteof the developments and expressed deep concern aboutthe matter. In the Academic interest of the students, thecouncil approved the action recommended by theAcademic Council for the de-affiliation of RatnadeepPharmacy College Ratnapur - Jamkhed. It was resolvedto communicate the decision about the de-affiliation of 13 WP / 9306 / 2024+Ratnadeep Pharmacy College Ratnapur - Jamkhed tothe concerned institute, Government of Maharashtra,Admission Regulatory Authority, Apex body (PCI) and allother concerned."19.A careful perusal of this coupled with the provisions ofsection 57 of the University Act of 2014, would make it abundantly clearthat the impugned order does not even insinuate, leave alone makesany specific reference about the Vice Chancellor of the universityhaving approved of the action for withdrawal of affiliation, as is requiredby section 57. Besides, there is no specific and detail observation inany of these resolutions either of the Planning and Evaluation Board,the Academic Council or the Executive Council, to demonstrate thatthere was any deliberation on the shortcomings which prompted themto resolve, approve and recommend de-affiliation. 20.Surprisingly, the Planning and Evaluation (Monitoring)Board ex facie treated the request of the petitioner - institution vide itscommunication dated 11-08-2024 for transfer of the students ofB.Pharmacy affiliated to the respondent - University to a similar coursebeing conducted with affiliation to the SPPU, which course isapparently permissible under section 58 of the University Act of 2014,as a circumstance to substantiate its intention of de-affiliation of thepetitioners’ B.Pharmacy course. Precisely for these reasons, we are ofthe considered view that leaving aside the political angle, even theprocess for de-affiliation of the petitioners’ B.Pharmacy course affiliated 14 WP / 9306 / 2024+to the University is not in accordance with law and the establishedprinciples regarding any decision making process. It has notmeticulously followed it much less has been undertaken apparentlywithout application of mind. 21.It does not even refer to any independent inspectionhaving been carried out, except the one referred to herein-above dated09-09-2024, which itself was based on merely the information gatheredfrom the students. Besides, neither of the committees of theUniversity had objectively dealt with the replies to the shortcomingsoffered by the petitioner – institute. Even there in nothing todemonstrate that all this exercise was approved by its Vice Chancellor. In view of such state-of-affairs, the process undertaken by theUniversity, leading to de-affiliation of the B.Pharmacy course being runby the petitioner - institute pursuant to the impugned order, is not at allsustainable in law. 22.As regards the de-affiliation by the Board, of thepetitioners’ two D.Pharmacy courses, the process would be governedby the MSBTE Act of 1997 and particularly, section 32 thereof. As persection 32, a notice to show cause has to be served to the institution, inorder to undertake the process of de-affiliation, with a minimum periodof 30 days to respond. The notice served to the petitioner - institute bythe Board dated 27-05-2024 calls upon it to give reply by 11-06-2024 15 WP / 9306 / 2024+and the affiliation has been withdrawn on 12-07-2024. It would clearlydemonstrate that contrary to the provisions of section 32, the impugnedorder of de-affiliation itself has been taken / passed without extendingany opportunity to the petitioner - institution to respond to it with aminimum period of 30 days prescribed therein. The affidavit in replyfiled by the Board conspicuously omits to address this aspect of thematter which is crucial one. It is merely contended that the action ofde-affiliation was preceded by a show cause notice, to which thepetitioner institute did not respond. 23.It is trite that when a law requires a thing to be done in aparticular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone. Whensection 32 of the MSBTE Act of 1997 mandates a minimum of 30 daysperiod to respond to the show cause notice, calling upon the petitionerto attend hearing within 30 days and taking the decision and trying tosubstantiate it by way of affidavit in reply on the ground that it had notresponded to the show cause notice, is a spacious plea. Thiscircumstance, in our considered view, also buttresses the stand of thepetitioner – institute that the entire action is prompted by mala fidesand political reasons. In view of such state-of-affairs, even the processundertaken by the Board of de-affiliating the D.Pharmacy coursesbeing run by the petitioner - institute, is also unsustainable in law. 16 WP / 9306 / 2024+24.In the light of above, since the action of de-affiliationimpugned in the petition, one by the University and the other by theBoard being not sustainable in law, those are liable to be quashed andset aside. Needless to state that it would always be open for theUniversity and the Board, to undertake a fresh process, if they sointend, however, in accordance with law.25.Consequently, even the impugned action of the respondent- University and the Board directing transfer of the students, also goes. 26.Though learned advocate Mr. Salunke for the intervenor -students submitted that the students who are not willing to undertakeeducation in the petitioner – institute, may be permitted to be shifted toother colleges, we cannot address the issue inasmuch as once theimpugned orders of de-affiliation are held to be not maintainable in law,the natural and logical consequences would follow. 27.As it is, as has been reported by the authorities, forundertaking the process of transfer only 24 students out of 88 studentswere available for counselling but only 15 out of those were eligible forbeing transferred to different institutes. Meaning thereby that majorityof the students were even not available for the counselling for beingshifted to some other institutes. Therefore, the request of the 17 WP / 9306 / 2024+intervenor - students in the form of intervention application whileopposing the petitions, cannot be entertained.28.The petitions are allowed.29.The impugned orders of de-affiliation and the consequentcommunications directing transfer of the students are quashed and setaside.30.Rule is made absolute.31.Pending civil application is disposed of. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/