High Court · 2025

Mr. Aj ay Veer Pundir, lear ned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 7 t o 9 subm it s t hat t he order dat ed

08.05.2025, im pugned in t his Appeal, does not qualify t o be a j udgm ent , as it only provides t hat t he I nt erim Relief Applicat ion shall be consider ed aft er grant ing one opport unit y t o file obj ect ion t o t he respondent s. He furt her subm it s t hat lear ned Single Judge was j ust ified in giving opport unit y t o t he r espondent s t o file obj ect ion t o t he I nt erim Relief Applicat ion, w hich is in consonance wit h Rules of Nat ural Just ice. He subm it s t hat none of t he right s of t he part ies ar e decided by t he im pugned order, t herefore, in view of t he provision cont ained in Rule 5 of Chapt er VI I I of 2 t he Rules of Court 1952, t his int ra- court appeal is not m aint ainable. Rule 5 of Chapt er VI I I of t he Rules of Court , 1952 is ext ract ed below for ready r eference: t o subj ect “ 5 . Sp e ci a l a p p e a l . An appeal shall lie t o t he Court from a j udgm ent ( not being a j udgm ent passed in t he exercise of appellat e j urisdict ion) in respect of a decree or order m ade by a Court t he superint endence of t he Court and not being an order m ade in t he exercise of revisional j urisdict ion or in t he exercise of it s pow er of superint endence or in t he exercise of crim inal j urisdict ion or in t he exercise of t he j urisdict ion conferred by Art icle 226 or Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion in respect of any j udgm ent , order or award ( a) of a t ribunal, Court or st at ut ory arbit rat or m ade or purport ed t o be m ade in t he exercise or purport ed Ut t arakhand Act or under any Cent ral Act , wit h respect t o any of t he m at t ers enum erat ed in t he St at e List or t he Concurrent List in t he Sevent h Schedule t o t he Const it ut ion, or ( b) of t he Governm ent or any officer or aut horit y, m ade or purport ed t he exercise or purport ed exercise of appellat e or revisional j urisdict ion under any such Act of one Judge.” t o be m ade j urisdict ion exercise

6. I n his writ pet it ion, appellant challenged a com m unicat ion issued by Cent ral Governm ent .

7. Lear ned counsel for t he appellant cont ends t hat t he im pugned com m unicat ion dat ed 03.03.2025, Minist ry of Educat ion, Gover nm ent of I ndia, per m it t ed Guruk ul Kangri ( Deem ed t o be Univer sit y) , Haridwar t o cont inue wit h it s exist ing Mem orandum of Associat ion in disregar d of t he UGC ( I nst it ut ions Deem ed t o be Universit ies) Regulat ions, 2023. He subm it s t hat UGC ( I nst it ut ions Deem ed t o be Univer sit ies) Regulat ions, 2019 wer e r epealed by t he UGC Regulat ions, 2023, not ified on

02.06.2023, t her efore, Guruk ul Kangri ( Deem ed t o be Universit y) could not have been perm it t ed t o cont inue wit h it s exist ing Mem orandum of Associat ion. Thus, cont ended t hat t he UGC ( I DTBU) Regulat ions, 2019 cannot 3 be perm it t ed t o operat e aft er it s repeal, for giving som e benefit t o Gur uk ul Kangri ( Deem ed t o be Univer sit y) , Haridwar.

8. Per cont ra, lear ned counsel appearing respondent nos. 7 t o 9 subm it s t hat t he im pugned com m unicat ion dat ed 03.03.2025 is referable t o Sect ion 20 of t he Universit y Grant s Com m ission Act , 1956, which em powers t he Cent ral Gover nm ent t o issue dir ect ions. He furt her subm it s t hat Sect ion 26 of t he UGC Act , 1956 aut horises t he Univer sit y Grant s Com m ission t o m ake regulat ions consist ent wit h t he provisions of t he Act and t he Rules m ade t hereunder. He furt her subm it s t hat t he Regulat ions m ade under Sect ion 26 are subservient t o t he Rules m ade by Cent ral Gover nm ent under Sect ion 25 of t he Act . He t hus subm it s t hat t he Cent ral Gover nm ent exer cised it s st at ut ory powers under Sect ion 20 of t he UGC Act , 1956 by issuing a direct ion t hat Guruk ul Kangri ( Deem ed t o be Universit y) , Haridwar can cont inue wit h it s exist ing Mem orandum of associat ion t ill t he end of financial year 2027- 28 subj ect t o cert ain condit ions enum erat ed in t he aforesaid let t er.

9. We find subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 t o 9 t hat wit hout considering provisions of t he UGC Act , 1956 especially t he int erplay bet ween Sect ion 20 & 26 of t he said Act , t he issues raised in t he writ pet it ion cannot be decided. The scope and cont ours of pow er available t o Cent ral 4 Governm ent under Sect ion 20 of t he Act will have t o be exam ined w hile deciding t he writ pet it ion.

10. Thus, lear ned Single Judge was j ust ified grant ing opport unit y t o t he r espondent s t o t heir obj ect ions t o t he I nt erim Relief Applicat ion befor e passing any int erim order.

11. Thus, any int erfer ence wit h t he or der passed by learned Single Judge, at t his st age, would not be warrant ed.

12. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of wit h liber t y t o t he appellant t o m ake prayer before learned Writ Court for expedit ious disposal of t he writ pet it ion. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) [ Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006d a82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87564 3AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 5