NS: ^"^:?^ ^"^'^ '^ \ ^ RESPONDENTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH ('PIL) W.P. N0. 51 O (o /2005 Saurabh Pandey, S/o Shri M.P< Pandey, Aged about 21 years, R/o ~ Shankar Nagar, LIG - 62, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Gaurav Jain, S/o Shri Gulab Jain, Aged about 21 years, R/o - Behind ICCI Bank Choubey Colony, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Jai Kisun Bajaj^ S/o Shri J.R. Bajaj, Aged about 21 years, R/o - CivU Lrnes, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Abhishek Losalka, S/o Shri S.K. Losalka, Aged about 22 years, R/o - Jawahar Nagar Dhulon Complex, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Its Secretary Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pt. Ravi Shankar University, Through: Its Registrar, Pt. Ravi Shankar University, Amanaka Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Rai Foundation, — ^-i -*• fc^ L<-1.» *i.a«* t^^* kf fc f^-v^ ^ ^^^ "t '* ^) Through: Its President, Raipur Education Trust, (Rai Foundation) Mana Camp, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. All india Institute of Engmeering. A body corporate & constituted under Ail India Council For Technical Education Act, 1987. Having its Registererd Office at LG, Sports Complex, I.P. Estate, NewDeIhi- 110002. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTiON OF INDIA FOR ISSUAI\CE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS, ORDERS, DIRECTIONS OR LIKE ETC. ^ t .X ^ ^ k *. ..// ^^r ^ ^ ^" l^ftt Vi^ Al3> India eouncil S'oar telahnicail Sducation (A»X*g<»®«s> through Ats Glieiratan » A body c^.Eporat®eoastituted uiadea? AlX Xndi^ ©ounGil forteGhnioU gdueaUoti Aat,198% Having its a*egisfcer©doffice at X«©»sports Gomplex 2«E?» Bs'tate- New Delhi, CON; The p< 1) >:\ 'j •I p ei fr. pc Sc Ur Un Ks] Adl StUi Uni cam othe near Supi -„--,-.. t_IL*_t JL-___I. !.< •^ •^•'A :/ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIIASPUR WRIT PETITION N0^5108 QFJ2005 Saurabh Pandev and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others CORAM : HON'BLE SHR! S.R. NAYAK, C.J. AND HOWBLB SHRI FAKHRimDIN, J Dr. N.K- ShuMa, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gautain BhadLiri, counsel for the petitioners Shri Pramod Verma, Addl. Advocate General with Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents 1 and 2. ShriY.C. Sharma, counselforrespondentNo.3. 1' ORDER 1. This is a most unfortunate case looking from the angle of the petitioners/students^ but, the Court is totally helpless to grant any reMef to the petitioners/ students. State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Nizi Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthpaiia Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyain, 2002 (for short the Act). 'The petitioners/students were adraitted tnto the University/ respondent No.3 herein to pursue Engineering courses. Wnile they were pursuing ftie Engineermg courses in the said Universit^7, ttie vires ofthe Act was assailed before the Apex Court. 'T'he Apex Court by its judgment dated 11-2-2005 handed down in Writ Peto.(C) No, 19 of 2004 and connected matters in the case of Prof. Ycishffal and cinother vs, State of Chhatttsfaarh and others reported in 2005 AIR SCW 1168 has struck down the Act as unconstitutional, WhUe doing so the Apex Court in paragraphs 45 and 46 observed thus : "45. As a consequence offhe discussion raade and the finduigs rccorded that fhe provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act are utoa vires and the Gazette Notifications x.'^ ''}" i notifying the Universities are liable to be quashed, aU such Universities shall cease to exist. Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that fhe UGC had conducted an inquir^r aiid it was found that niost of the Universities were non- existent, but the report was not placed before the Court as the complete exercise had not been done. Learned counsel for fhe Universities have seriously disputed this fact and have submitted that the Universities are functioning. We have not gone into this question as it is purely factual. In order to protect the iaterests of the students who may be actually studying in fhe institutions established by such private Universities, it is directed that ftie State Govemment may take appropriate measures to have such institutions affiliated to the already existing State Universities in Chhattisgarh. V/e are issuing this direction keeping in mind the interest of the students and also Sections 33 and 34 of the Act, which complete dissolution ,of the sponsoring body and liquidation of a Universit^7 whereunder responsibiUty has to be assumed by fhe State Govemment. It is, hovvTever, made clear that ttie benefit of affiliation of an Institution shall be extended only if it fulfiUs the requisite norms and standards laid down for such purposc aad not to cvcry kind of institution. Regarding technical, medical or dental colleges, etc. affiliation may be accorded if they have been established after futfilling the prescribed criteria laid down by the AU India Council of Technical Education, Medical Council of India, Dental CouncU of India or any other statutor^' authority and with their approval or sanction as prescribed by law, 46. In view of the discussions made above, Writ Petition (C) No. 19 of 2004 (Prof. Yashpal & Ors. V. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and Writ Petition (C) No.565 of 2003 (Gopalji Agarawal v. Union of Indla & Ors.) are allowed and provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Vinmyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 are declared to be ultra vires and are struck down. As a consequence of such declaration, all nottfications issued by the State Governnieut ia the ga^tte m tiie purported exercise of power under Section 5 ofthe aforesaid Act notifying fhe Univcrsitics (including rcspondcnt Nos. 3 to 94) arc quashed and such Universities shall cease to exist. If any institutions have been established by such Universities, steps may be taken for their affitiation to already existmg State Universities in accordance wiQi the dtrection contained in paragraph 45 above. Parties would be at Ubert5-r to approach the High Court if any dispute arises m implementation of fhis direction. All vvrit petitions, cMl appeals and transferred cases filed by the Private Universities are dismissed.'1' /^ 2. As du-ected by the Apex Court in paragraph 45 of its judgment, Statute No.27(A), marked as Annexure-P/1 was issued under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973 (for short the Universities Act). We were told that constitutional validity of the statute was also assailed before this Court and the Apex Court and ultimately the challenge failed and the validity of the statute was upheld. That judgnient of the Apex Court is also reported in 200S AIR SCW 4612 [Rcd Universitvi vs. State of Chhattissaarh and others). In the meanwhile, it appears that these fhree petitioners-students and certain others sunilarly circumstanced students were permitted to pursue the course and appear for the exaaiinations conducted by the 2nd respondent- University. WIien the matter stood thus, this writ petition is presented under Articles 226 & 227 of fhe Constitution of India praying for the followtng reliefs : vV / "7. RBLIEF SOUGHT The petitioners most humbly pray for grant of following relief before this Hon~Dle Court : 7.1 That, fhe respondent No.2 Pt. Ravi Shankar University may be directed to declare the resLilt of the 4th semester of the student of the Engineering College of the name and styled School of Engmeering & Applied Science wherein the petitioners are studying so that thcir futurc may not bc wastcd. 7.2 That, the petitioners may be allowed to appear in the exam of 5th semester of engineering. 7.3 That, fhe respondents raay be directed to absorb the students in any of the engineering college affiliated to the University within the territory of Chhattisgarh State or m the altemative. 7.4 T'he State may be directed to take over the college infrastructure ofrespondentNo.3 situated at Mana for deliberately defying fhe orders of Hon?ble Suprerae Court and damaging thc futurc ofttic studcnts. 7.5 Cost of the petition be allowed. 7.6 Any ottier relief as fhe Hon?ble Court deems fit under thc circuinstanccs oftlic casc/? .4 ^' /. 3. We have heard Dr. N.K. Shukla, leamed Sr. counsel with Shri Gautam Bhaduri for the petitioners^ Shri Praiiiod Verma, leamed Addl. Advocate General with Shri Sumesh Bajai, leamed Dy. Govt. Advocate who appeared for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Y.C. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 4, Dr, ShuMa, leamed senior coiinsel drawing our attention to what is observed by the Apex Court in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the judgment in the case of Prof. Yashpal (Supra), would contend that in view of the observations contained in fhe above paragraphs, it is fair and just that the University must be peruiitted to allow the petitioners/students to pursue fheir education in fhe Engtneering courses and also to declare the results of the exaaiination of the writ petitioners, According to Dr. Shukla, th.at is the fair thing to be done particularly in the context of the fact that the very University, on an earlier occasion, had granted temporary affiliation to the University established by the third respondent/Rai Foundation. 5, Per contra, leamed Additional Advocate General, Shri Verma would point out that the reliefs sought by the petitioners cannot be granted, if not for any reason, for the simple reason that the University tn which the petitioners/students have studied the courses have yet to seek permission of the AICTE whose permission is a must for establishing the Engineering college. 6. In reply, Dr. Shukla would point out that the third respondent/Rai Foundation had ab-eady made an application ,before the AICTE for permission, but, AICTE has not yet taken any decision on the application. ^. .€- •-.••^ 7. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties, we are fuuy convinced that there is no semblance of legal right in the petitioners to seek writ of mandamus. It is tirite that mandaiaus will never go to any aufhority under any circumstance uiiless the applicant for the writ establishes a legally enforceable vested right in htm.. The facts are not in dispute and they are straight-fonvard. The college in which the petitioners/students were admitted could not be regarded as an educational institution recognized either by the AICTE or by the University. We say this because the Act under which the thu'd respondent/University was established is condemned by the Apex Court as unconstitutional, as a result, the University which had adnutted the petitioners/students to pursue the Engineering coLU-ses could not be recognized at aU in the eye of law. If the University itsetf cannot be recogmzed in the eye of law, recognizing the petitioners/students and further issutng mandamus to the second respondent/Pt. Ravi Shankar University to declare the results or to peniiit them. to piirsue their education, would not arise. Looking frora any angle, we do not flnd any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/-, Chief Justice Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge Pathak