^ '^ ^r IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. l^°b/2005 F'ETITIONER ^,./'^ "^ \^/'^ ^c^ ^y ^" x Rai University, Mana, V.I.P. Road, Raipur -- through Its Vice Chanceller, K.C. Agrawal, son of Shri R.C. Agrawal, aged about 63 years, Vice Chancellor Erstwhile Rai University, Resident of VIP Road, Mana, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)f v^\y y RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through - Its Chief Secretary, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ^2. Department of Higher Education (Technical Education), Jana Shakti Niyojan and Science Technology, Through - Its Additional Chief Secretary, Raipur (C.G.) / f^^< All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) through Its Chairman, Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. ^ 4. Pandit Ravishankar Shukla / University, Raipur, through - Its Registrar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS ETC. AND FOR APPROPRIATE WRIT OR WRITS. ORDER OR ORDERS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ..^-..'^..^ 4. s^ &^ HtGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH fDivision Benchl Coram: & Hon.bte Mr. A.K. Patnaik, CJ. Hon'bte Mr. Sunil Kumar Smha,J. WRIT PETITION N0.1606 OF 2005 Rai Unwersity Versus - State of Chhatti^arh & others Present: Mr. P. Dhvaker, Sr. Advocate wltfi Mr. Atok Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prashant Mishra, Addttional Advocate Generad, forthe State of Chhattisgarh. ORDER (26-04-2005) The following order of the Court was passed by A.K. Patnaik, C.J. By judgment dated 11th February, 2005 in the case of Prof. Yashpa! & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in Writ Petition (CMI) No.19 of 2004. the Supreme Court declared the pro^sions of Sections S & 6 of the ChhatHsgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyataya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 to be ultra viras and quashed the notifications issued by the State Govemment in the Gazette in purported exerdse of the powers under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act notMying Ihe Universfties. In paragraph 45 of thejudgment, the Supreme Court ftjrther held that in order to protect the interest of the studente who may be actually studying in the instjtutions established by such private unh/ersities, the State Govemment may take approprfate measures to have such insfituttons afRliated to the already existing State Univereitles in Chhattisgarh. The Supreme Court, however, made itctear that the benefit of affiliation to an institution shall be extencted onty if it fuffills the requisjte norms and standards lakl down for such purposeand not to wery kind of ^^) -2-- institution. In paragraph 46 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court further observed that steps may be taken for affltjafion ofthe mstitutions established by such private Unhwreities to the already existhig State Universities in accordance with the directfons contained in paragra|rfi 45 of the judgment and that the parties would b©at liberfy to approach the High Court if any dispute arises in imptementation ofthe direction. 2. Pursuant to the said direcfa'ons in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, Statute No.27(A) titted as "Admission of interim mstitutions to the privileges of the Unhwsify and withdrawat thereof has been framed and dause 5 of the sajd Staferte N@.27(A) provides as foltows: "5. xxx xxx xxx, an interim institution witt be admitted t©the privjleges of the ESU on the basis of the territorial Jurisdtetlon of ESU for affiljation, as specified in Second Schedute of the above said Act on applicatjon of the Sponsoring Body of the Interim Institution and the same shall b®withdrawn thereof in the manner in the paras mentioned hereinafter." In the aforesaid dause 5 ofStatute No.27(A). tt is sBpulated thatan interim institution will be admitted to the privileges of the ESU (existing State Universities) on the basis ofthe territorial jurisdiction of E8U for afRliatien. Thus, the said dause 5 of Stetute No.27(A) does n@t mak®anytMroviston for admission of interim institution to the privlteg^ of the existing State Universities if ttie institution is beyond the territorial jurisdicttw of the existing State Universities for affiliation. The petttioner -Ftei Unjvereity has chaltenged ttiis prowsfon in clause 5 of Statute No.27(A) in thla wrtt petition and has prayed for quashing the said provision in elause 5 of Statute No.27(A). 3. Mr. P. Diwaker, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petiUoner submitted that the petitioner had various study centers beyond the State of ChhatGsgarh and in these study centere beywid ttie State cf Chhaffisgarh approximately 8500 students were studying different courses arei if such study centers are not admltted to the prh^eges of the eMStlng Stats Unwersities on the ground that such study centers are loca^l out stele ttie territory of the State of Chhatfisgarh, such 8®K)students v^tl not be abte to take the examinations in different courees which are scheduled to be B^, ® • 3- held in may, 2005. He submitted that it is for this reason ttiat the peBtioner has chaltenged the provision in ctause 5 of the Statute No.27(A) whidi confines the admission of an interim institution to the privileges of th® existing State Universities on the basis of the territorial jurisdicUon of the existing State Universities. 4. Mr. Prashant Mishra, teamed Additlonal Advocate Generat, on tie ottier hand, submitted ttiat would be ctear from ttie judgment of the Supreme Court and in particular para 41 thereoflhat the pro^sfons of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 have been declared to be ulfaa vires as tt made a provision enabling the Unh/erstty establfshed under the sakl Act te have an off-campus centre outside ttie Sterte and this was ctoariy beyond tfie Leglslative competence of the Chhattisgarh Legjslahire. He submitted that in vlew of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, a provision had to be made in Statute No.27(A) admitting an interim instihAion t@ the pmiteges of tfie exisfing State Universifies on fte tosis of fte territerial jurisdiction of the existing State Universtties and prohibiting anyinstitution located outside the territory of the State of Chhattisgarh from being admftted to the pmit^es of Vhe ewstjng State Universities as an interira institution. 5. We find fuB force in the ayoresaid submission of Mr. Mjshra, leamed AddJtional Advocate General. Para 41 ofthe aforesakt ^idgment of the Supreme Court is quoted herejn below: "41 .Dr. Dhawan has also drawn the attcntjon of the Courtto certain ottier provisions of the Act which have effect oirtside the Stete of Chhattisgarh and ttier^y giw the State Enactment an extra temtorial operatwn. Section 2(1) of the amendment Act defines 'off-campus centres' which means a centre of ttie Univereity estabiished by tt outade ttie majn campus (within or outside the State) operated and maintained as its constituent unte having the universay's complement of facijities, faculty and staff. Section 2(g) defines 'off-shore campus' and it means a campus of the unh^erslty established by it outside the country, operated and maintained as tts constituent untt, havlng the universjfy's Gomptement of facilities, facutty and staff. Section 3(7) says ftat the ol^ect of the Universify shall be to establish main campus in Chhattisgarh and to have the study centers at dlfferent places in India and other counfries. In view of Articte 245 (1) of the 1 77 l^^-. ^Lt- ^>^w Constjtution, Pariiament alone is competentto make lawsfor the whole or any part of th©temtory of India and tfie legislature of a State may make laws forlhe whpte oranyi»irt of the State. The impugned Act whteh spedficatty nrokes a provision enabling a University to have an off-campus centi® - outside the State is ctearly beyond the le^jslative competence o the Chhattisgarh legislature." It would be ctear from para 41 of the aforesatd ju^gmerrtthatthe Suprem'e Court has ctearly held that in view of the provisjons of Articte 245(1) of the Consfitution it is only Pariiament which is competent to matee laws for ttie whote or any part of ttie territory of ttie India and Vhe l^ifelsrture of tfie State can make taws for the whote or any part oftheStatebutnetforany terrftory beyond the Sterte. Jt would also be ctear from para 41 @f the aforesaid judgment of ttie Supreme Court ttet fte Supreme Court has held that the aforesaid Act was beyond the legislathw competence @f the Chhattisgarh Legjslature because it enabled a UniversHy to have an off- campus centre outeide ttie State. 6. (n view of the said ctear judgment of ttie Supreme Court, we possibty can not entertain this writ petjfion chaflenging the provjsions of clause 5 of the Statute No.27(A) which confln^ ttie admission of an interim instifcition to the privileges of the exjsfing State Universifias on the basis of the temtorial jurisdicBon of the existing State Umversifies for afRliation and which thereby prohibMs off-campus cenfres loeated outside the territory ofthe ChhatGsgarh from being admittedto the prhnleges crfthe existtng State Universittes of the State of Chhatttsgarh smd we accordir^ly dismiss the same. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge