THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2480 of 2007 Dated 28th June, 2010 Between: Vivekananda College of Education, Kandukuru …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, Counsel for respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for School Education Counsel for respondent No.2: None appeared Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4: Sri C. Sudesh Anand, learned standing counsel for APSCHE The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside G.O.Rt.No.64, dated 02.02.2007, issued by respondent No.1, whereby penalties were imposed on the petitioner on two counts. They are:- (i) methodology deviation, and (ii) non-minority candidates’ admission without convenor’s approval in respect of sixty-three candidates. Both these deviations were stated to have occurred during the academic year 2004-05. A few facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition need to be stated. The petitioner is a minority institution running B.Ed., course. Prior to the academic year 2004-05, the petitioner had valid recognition of minority institution. When admissions were commenced during the first phase of 2004-05 academic year, its minority status was not in force. Therefore, it is an admitted case that the convenor, namely, respondent No.4 allotted forty-one non-minority students to the petitioner college. However, by the time the second phase commenced, the petitioner’s minority status was renewed. The petitioner was stated to have violated the procedure contained in G.O.Ms.No.26, School Education (Trg-A1) Department, dated 03.02.2005, on the above two counts, namely, methodology deviation and admission of non-minority candidates without convenor’s approval. As a result of the said deviations, respondent No.1 has imposed penalties of Rs.25,000/- for the deviation in respect of methodology and Rs.15,75,000/- under the second alleged deviation, namely, admission of non-minority candidates in the seats reserved for minority quota, by purportedly applying G.O.Rt.No.64 dated 02.02.2007. This action is assailed in this writ petition. At the hearing, Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while stating that his client is not disputing the imposition of the penalty of Rs.25,000/- for methodology deviation, it is seriously questioning levy and collection of Rs.15,75,000/- towards alleged admission of non-minority candidates in the minority quota. The learned counsel submitted that prior to arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner has violated the prescribed procedure in respect of the abovementioned deviations, respondent No.1 has not given any opportunity to the petitioner to meet the allegation. He further submitted that respondent No.2 university has issued a show-cause notice on 04.10.2006 calling upon the petitioner to explain why action shall not be taken for violation of the above two mentioned deviations. The petitioner submitted its detailed explanation to the University immediately thereafter on 26.10.2006. That even before the university has considered the said explanation submitted by the petitioner and an order was passed, respondent No.1 has issued G.O.Rt.No.64 dated 02.02.2007 and recovered the penalty from the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the action for recovery of penalty from the petitioner is in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 3. Though both these respondents have sought to lend justification to the issue of G.O.Rt.No.64 dated 02.02.2007, the above mentioned issue raised by the petitioner pertaining to the violation of principles of natural justice has not been met by either of these respondents in their counter-affidavits. G.O.Rt.No.64 dated 02.02.2007 was issued on the basis of the letter dated 05.12.2006 addressed by the Secretary of respondent No.3. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 has not conducted formal enquiry before submitting its report to respondent No.1. In a case such as this where the petitioner is seriously disputing the allegation that it has admitted non- minority students in the minority quota, unless an opportunity is given to the petitioner and the dispute is adjudicated, respondent No.1 cannot ultimately assume only on the basis of the report of the Secretary of respondent No.3 that the petitioner has violated the procedure pertaining to the admission of non-minority students in the minority quota. The petitioner’s grievance is limited to lack of opportunity being afforded to it and levying and collecting the penalty before rendering a finding that it has violated the procedure prescribed by respondent No.1 in admitting the students. Having carefully considered the submissions of learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri C. Sudesh Anand, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4, I find merit in the above contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. When show-cause notice was issued by respondent No.2 university and the petitioner submitted explanation, it is obligatory on the part of respondent No.1 either to await adjudication by respondent No.2 or issue a separate show-cause notice and decide the issue itself, before levying the penalty. On the admitted facts of the case that neither respondent No.2 university has given any finding on the alleged violation by the petitioner, nor respondent No.1 has given a show-cause notice and an opportunity to the petitioner before levying penalty, I am of the view that levy of penalty on the allegation that the petitioner has deviated from the mandatory procedure by admitting sixty-three non-minority candidates without the convenor’s approval for the academic year 2004-2005 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said action is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue a show-cause notice and an opportunity to the petitioner to submit its explanation. After considering the explanation, if any, to be filed by the petitioner and giving it an opportunity of personal hearing, it shall pass an appropriate order. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount already collected by respondent No.1 may be retained with it till a fresh order is passed. Needless to state that refund of the said amount would depend upon the outcome of the decision to be taken by respondent No.1. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th June, 2010 GHN