IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT APPEAL NO : 944 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/05/2007 in WP NO : 12078 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Government of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Special Officer/R.D.O. Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. 4 The Joint Action Committee, rep. by its Secretary, M.V. Rama Mohan Reddy S/o. M. Veera Reddy, S.B.S.Y. Degree College, Mydukur, Kadapa District (R4 is impleaded as per court order dt. 15-2-2007 in WPMP 23109 of 2006) ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 N. Balasiva Yogindra Maharaj Degree College, Mydukur, Rep by its Correspondent, Sri Balasiva Yogindra Maharaj @ Thota Eswara Varaprasad, S/o. Late Rosaiah, aged about 54 years, R/o. Mudukur, Kadapa District. 2 The Management Committee of Sri Balasiva Yogindra Maharaj Degree College, Mudukur, Kadapa District, Rep by its Secretary- General, Dr. M. Gopala Krishna Reddy, Former Vice-Chancellor, Andhra University 3 Joint Action Committee, rep by its Secretary, M.V. Rama Mohan Reddy S/o M. Veera Reddy, SBSY. Degree College, Mydukur, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondents: MR.N.BHARAT BABU The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT APPEAL No.944 of 2007 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. This writ appeal is filed assailing the order, dated 01.05.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing Writ Petition No.12078 of 2006, which was filed seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected to G.O.Rt.No.502, dated 07.06.2006, issued by the first petitioner herein, and to quash the same by declaring it as illegal and improper. 3. Factual background of the case is required to be stated for better appreciation, which is as under: - Sri Balasiva Universal Peace Foundation is a society registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act. It initiated three educational institutions quite some time back i.e., about 27 years ago. The present institution, by name S.B.S.Y.M. Degree College, Mydukur, Kadapa District, is one among those three institutions and there is a Managing Committee to organize the affairs of the said College. The Correspondent, who is the first respondent herein, was appointed by the said Managing Committee. 4. While so, certain alleged irregularities committed by the Correspondent were noticed by the competent authority, representing the Government of Andhra Pradesh. A show cause notice, dated 28.12.2004, has been issued to the Correspondent, under Section 24 (3) (a) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for brevity ‘the Act’), asking him to explain as to why the Management should not be suspended and Special Officer be appointed to run the said college. An explanation has been offered by the Correspondent on 27.01.2005. Having not been satisfied with the said explanation, the competent authority has passed the order, dated 08.11.2005, suspending the Management as well as the Correspondent and consequently, appointed a Special Officer. It is that action which has been appealed before the appellate authority and the same was rejected on 07.06.2006. As against which, the writ petition came to be filed. 5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both parties extensively and after considering various legal aspects, including the scope of Section 24 (3) (a) of the Act, passed an elaborate order allowing the writ petition. Hence, the present writ appeal by the competent authority, representing the Government. 6. Learned counsel appearing on either side argued in exten so. But, the kennel of the issue involved is very small. We are not going into the veracity or otherwise of the charges levelled against the Correspondent or the Management. 7. The core issue involved in this writ appeal revolves around the scope of Section 24 (3) (a) of the Act, which reads as under: - “Where the competent authority is satisfied that the management is responsible for the lapses or irregularities of the institution, the competent authority may, after giving to such management an opportunity to make representation and for reasons to be recorded in writing suspend the management and appoint a special officer till the reconstitution of the Management: {Provided that in relation to a private institution, under the Management of a charitable or religious institution, charitable or religious endowment and a wakf, the competent authority shall be the Government or an authority or officer authorized by the Government in this behalf.} (b) Where the competent authority is satisfied that the manager alone is responsible for the lapses or irregularities of the institution, action shall be taken against him by the management, as recommended by the competent authority.” 8. From a plain reading of the above provision, it is obvious that sub-section 3 (a) of Section 24 contemplates action against the Management only in the event of finding any lapses or irregularities by the Management. It is to be noted that this provision does not speak an action for the alleged irregularities committed by the Correspondent. However, sub-section 3 (b) of Section 24 of the Act envisages that if the competent authority finds any lapses or irregularities on the part of the Correspondent, recommendation be made to the Management by it to initiate action against the Correspondent. 9. Therefore, a specific procedure has been carved out under sub-section 3 (a) and (b) of Section 24 of the Act to initiate action both against the Management and the Correspondent independently. In both the events, it is only the Management, which has to be addressed, be it, the irregularities on the part of the Management or the Correspondent. It further postulates that if the competent authority finds any allegations or irregularities on the part of the Correspondent, recommendations can be made to the Management to take action against the Correspondent. In the event of not taking any action against the Correspondent under sub-section 6 of Section 24 of the Act, a further action can be initiated against the Management by the competent authority. 10. In a way, the competent authority is only a regulatory authority, but cannot function as a Manager of the institution. The Management of the institution shall nominate a person to manage the affairs of the institution, through the Secretary, Correspondent or by any other name, who would be the authorized person to represent the Managing Committee, which is a body of persons, including the nominees by the department, University and the Management. Therefore, the competent authority cannot exercise all the powers of the Management for the simple reason that the institution is not represented either by it or by the Government. However, the Management has to necessarily function subject to the directions of the competent authority from time to time. If the directions are not complied with by the Management, proper action can be initiated against it by the competent authority under the Act. Therefore, the competent authority is only a regulatory body but not a body, which can have an overriding power on the Management or can act as the Management. 11. In the present case, all the above aspects have been dealt with carefully and elaborately by the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order. Further, we find that various other aspects have also been discussed in depth and in detail by the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order. 12. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the show cause notice, dated 28.12.2004, was issued to the Correspondent by his name making allegations against him in person. 13. Further, as already noticed, sub-section 3 (a) of Section 24 of the Act can be invoked only against the Management in case of lapses or irregularities on the part of the Management but not the Correspondent. 14. In the present case, though the irregularities were levelled against the Correspondent, the proposed action of suspending the Management as a whole was taken by issuing a show cause notice to the Correspondent. 15. Under sub-section 3 (b) of Section 24 of the Act, if the competent authority wants to initiate action against the Correspondent, it is only the Management that has to be addressed first, by way of making recommendations, and of course, action shall be taken against the Correspondent by the Management basing on such recommendations, otherwise the power under sub- section-6 of Section 24 of the Act would be invoked. 16. It is rather unfortunate that the competent authority has ignored the plain language deployed in sub-section 3 (a) and (b) of Section 24 of the Act and issued a show cause notice to the Correspondent for the alleged irregularities on his part and took action against the Management as a whole. Without there being any irregularities on the part of the Management, initiating action of suspending the Management as a whole by the competent authority is highly arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since all the other aspects have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge, elaborately, in the impugned order, which are not in serious dispute, we do not feel it necessary to go into all those aspects. 17. For the foregoing, the writ appeal is devoid of any merits and consequently, the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the interim order, dated 22.04.2008, passed by this Court, in W.A.M.P.No.2207 of 2007, appointing Three-Member Committee of Special Officers is hereby vacated. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 19. However, it is made clear that this judgment does not preclude the competent authority from proceeding in accordance with law, if necessary and so advised. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU J 11TH JUNE 2008 DR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Principal Secretary, Government of A.P, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Special Officer/R.D.O. Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. 4 The Joint Action Committee, rep. by its Secretary, M.V. Rama Mohan Reddy S/o. M. Veera Reddy, S.B.S.Y. Degree College, Mydukur, Kadapa District 4 2CCs to Government Pleader for Higher Education, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 5 2CD copies