Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Respondent
Respondent
Respondents
Respondents
THE FACTS
2. There is a trust known as Rawatpura Sarkar Lok Kalyan Trust (the
Trust). It started a university in the name of Rawatpura Sarkar
International University (the Rawatpura-University) at Raipur. It was a
private university and was granted recognition of a deemed university by
the University Grants Commission (the UGC). The Institute was affiliated
to the Rawatpura-University.
3. Subsequently, the Institute got affiliated to Ravishanker Shukla
University (the Ravishanker-University).
4. The Institute decided to start a BEd course. The Western Regional
Committee (the WRC) constituted under the National Council of Teachers
Education Act (the Act) granted recognition to it.
Thereafter, the
15. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Institute filed an appeal before
the appellate authority. It was dismissed on 26.04.2011, affirming the
finding of the WRC.
16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Institute filed Writ Petition
(C)- 2875 of 2011.
Facts Regarding MEd Course
17.
the WRC and the appellate authority. However, considering the future of
the students, the single judge,
24. The WRC has filed Writ Appeals- 427 and 428 of 2013 against the
direction issued by the single judge. The Institute has filed Writ Appeals466 and 467 of 2013 against the order of the single judge for not
quashing the impugned orders. The writ appeals are now being taken up
for decision.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
25. We have heard counsel for the parties. There is delay in filing the writ
appeals. The counsel for the parties have no objection in condoning the
delay in filing the writ appeals. The delay in filing the writ appeals is
condoned and with the consent of the parties, the writ appeals are being
finally decided.
26. The following points arise for determination:
(i)
28. Under section 2 of the 2006-Act, an appeal lies against the order
passed by the single judge in exercise of original jurisdiction under article
226 of the Constitution.
determines, whether the order was passed under Article 226 or 227 of
the Constitution.
33. The question is, considering the substance of the order passed by the
single judge here, whether the order is passed under article 226 or under
article 227 of the Constitution.
34. The WPs were filed under article 226/ 227 of the Constitution. The
reliefs prayed for, were for quashing of the impugned orders and a
direction was prayed that the respondents- authorities may not withdraw
the recognition granted earlier for running BEd course or to grant
recogntion for running MEd after satisfying the compliance of the
conditions laid down under the Act on inspecting the Durg-premises.
35. The second relief prayed for in the WPs is not clear. However, it
appears that the Institute prayed that irrespective of the past conduct, a
fresh spot inspection may be conducted to consider continuance of the
BEd course or grant of recognition to the MEd course.
36. The single judge did not quash the impugned orders. However,
directed that:
'The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner
afresh after having spot inspection of the building in
question having regard to the future of the students and
pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, if
necessary by imposing penal compensation for violation of
provisions of regulations, if any, within a period of two
months.'
The question is, is this order in substance under article 226 or 227 of the
Constitution.
37. It has been held that the power of 'superintendence' conferred upon
the High Court under article 227 of the Constitution is not confined to
administrative (for rulings, see below)1 superintendence only, but
includes the judicial superintendence, akin to revisional or corrective
jurisdiction, as well (for rulings, see below) 2 and can be exercised suo
motu (for rulings, see below)3.
1 Waryam Singh v Amar Nath, AIR 1954 SC 215; Surya Dev Rai v Ram Chander
Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044; Jasbir Singh v State of Punjab,
(2006) 8 SCC 294 : (2006) 9 JT 35.
2 Banerjee, DN v PR Mukherjee: AIR 1953 SC 58; Achutananda Baidya v
Prafullya Kumar Gayen, (1997) 5 SCC 76 : AIR 1997 SC 2077; Surya Dev Rai v
Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044; Jasbir Singh v State
of Punjab, (2006) 8 SCC 294 : (2006) 9 JT 35.
3 Hari Vishnu Kamath v Ahmad Ishaque, Syed, AIR 1955 SC 233; Jain JD v
State Bank of India Management, AIR 1982 SC 673 : (1982) 1 SCC 143; Jasbir
Singh v State of Punjab (2006) 8 SCC 294 : (2006) 9 JT 35.
38. Had the single judge quashed the impugned orders; and thereafter
issued any directions, then it could be said that the single judge has
exercised power under article 227 of the Constitution as it may be done
under this article. But in this case, the impugned orders are not set aside
but a direction has been issued.
mandamus to the WRC and can be passed under article 226 of the
Constitution and not under article 227 of the Constitution. The writ
appeals are maintainable.
recognition on the ground that the BEd course was illegally shifted from
the Raipur-premises to the Durg-premises, as no approval of the WRC
was obtained. Is this reasoning correct?
40. The counsel for the Institute challenges the reasoning and finding.
He submits that:
The BEd course was shifted from the Raipur-premises to the Durgpremises in December, 2005, when the building was completed at
Durg;
Whereas, the counsel for the WRC supports the reasoning and finding.
He submits that:
The Institute should have taken permission from the WRC before
shifting its BEd course as mandated under clause 8(9) of the 2005Regulations;
Let us consider, who is correct, but first, as to when the BEd course was
shifted to the Durg-premises.
The temporary
University granted temporary affiliation for the academic session 200506 and the order to this effect was also issued on 20.04.2006. Since then,
it has been extended from time to time.
47. In the order granting affiliation by the Ravishankar-University, it is
mentioned that the Institute is at the Durg-premises. A copy of the order
was also sent to the WRC. This supports the assertion of the Institute
that it had shifted its BEd course earlier. As there is nothing to deny the
assertion of the Institute that it shifted BEd course to the Durg-premises
in December, 2005, we accept it.
48. In our opinion, the Institute shifted its BEd classes to the Durgpremises in December, 2005 though, the administrative office was
shifted later on.
2005-Regulations Not Applicable
49. The Institute had filed an application for grant of recognition of the
BEd course under the 2002-Regulations.
proper.
Even If 2005-Regulations ApplicableWithdrawal Illegal
52. The Institute had filed an application for grant of recognition to run
The WRC will neither be entitled to reject the recognition for BEd
course on the ground that the Institute had illegally shifted its
premises to Durg, nor impose any penalty on the Institute for
making alleged violation that does not exist;
CONCLUSIONS
68. Our conclusions are as follows:
(a) The writ appeals are maintainable;
(b) The orders withdrawing recognition for BEd course and refusing
to grant permission for MEd course are illegal.
69. In view of our conclusions, the Writ Appeals- 427 and 428 of 2013
filed by the WRC are dismissed and Writ Appeals- 466 and 467 of 2013
filed by the Institute are allowed:
(ii)
(b)
(ii)
CHIEF JUSTICE
subbu
JUDGE
Appendix-1
Some observations and suggestions regarding maintainability of appeal
against the order of the single judge passed under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution.
1. While deciding the first point, we have pointed out that the courts
have held that article 227 of the Constitution not only confers
administrative superintendence but judicial superintendenceakin to
revisional or corrective jurisdictionas well on the High Courts.
2. It is for the aforesaid reason that the law often provides an appeal
against the order of the single judge passed in exercise of original
jurisdiction but not in exercise of jurisdiction under article 227 of the
Constitution.
In re. Tirupuliswamy Naidu V, AIR 1955 Mad. 287 : (1954) 2 MLJ 473.
Aidal Singh v Karan Singh, AIR 1957 All 414 : 1957 All. LJ 389.
Sukendra Bikash Barua v Harekrishna De., AIR 1953 Cal. 636 : 57 Cwn 692.
Braham Dutt v People's Co-operative Society, AIR 1961 Punj 24 : 62 Punj. LR
916.
e Umaji Keshav Meshram v Radikabai, AIR 1986 SC 1272 : 1986 Supp. SCC 401;
Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar v Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha (1993)
Supp. (1) SCC 11 : AIR 1992 SC 185; Kishorilal v Sales Officer, District Land
Development Bank, (2006) 7 SCC 496 : (2006) 8 JT 200; Ratnagiri District
Central Co-operative Bank Limited v Dinar Kashinath Walve (1993) Supp. (1)
SCC 9
Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may annul or
quash the proceedings and then do no more, but in exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court may not only quash or set
aside the impugned proceedings, judgement or order, but it may
make such directions as the facts and circumstances of the case
may warrant or it may also substitute a decision of its own in place
of the impugned decision;
The jurisdiction under article 227 is wider than under article 226 of
the Constitution.
8. Under the article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has no
power of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or
under any law relating to the armed forces. This is provided under subarticle (4) of article 227 {227(4)} of the Constitution. However, there is no
such limitation under article 226 of the Constitution and the High Courts
have been exercising power under article 226 of the Constitution for
quashing the orders by such tribunals.
9. In a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution against the
orders of the tribunals constituted by or under any law relating to armed
forces namely, the court martial, the proceedings are sent up by the
tribunal; the record is substituted by means of affidavit while exercising
jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution.
10. Nevertheless, in a suitable case, the High Court may summon the
record of the tribunal and in that event, the record may be certified as
well. But generally, record is produced by the counsel.
11. The jurisdiction under article 226 may be wider than 227 of the
Constitution and may not be confined to quashing of the order. Under
article 226, the High Court can issue any other order or direction, as the
circumstances of the case may require.
12. Shorter Constitution of India by Durga Das Basu (14 th edition 2009) at
page- 1232 rightly sums up the law in this regard as follows:
'2. The powers of the High Court under article 226, like those of the
Supreme Court under article 32 are not confined to the 'prerogative
writs' and the High Court, in issuing directions, orders and writs
under article 226 can travel beyond the contents of the writs which
are normally issued as writs of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari.f
3. Article 226 speaks not of the English writs but of writs in the
nature of those writs; consequently, there is no reason why the
High Courts in India should feel oppressed by the procedural
Irani PJ v State of Madras AIR 1961 SC 1731 : 1962 (2) SCR 169; Dwarka Nath
v ITO, AIR 1966 SC 81 : 1965 (3) SCR 536.
HE ADLINES
Order of quasi-judicial authority not quashed, only mandamus issued.
Order is u/A 226. Writ Appeal maintainable.