1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4814 OF 2009 Shivsagar Sevabhavi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Through its Secretary & anr. ..PETITIONERS VERSUS Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, through its Registrar & anr. ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr K.M. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent no.2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. (Date of reserving the order : 31.8.2009 Date of pronouncing the order : 16.10.2009) ORDER (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.1 University withdrawing the affiliation of the petitioner no.2 college by 2 communications dated 16.6.2009 and 16.1.2009. The petitioners also pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the resolution passed by the Academic Council of respondent no.1 University dated 29.11.2008 and for quashing of the resolution of the Board of College and University Development of respondent no.1 university, dated 8.8.2008. The petitioners pray for directing the University to continue the affiliation of the petitioner no.2 college. The other relief which the petitioners have sought for in this petition pertains to ad interim reliefs. 2. The petitioner no.2 college was initially granted affiliation by the respondent University on certain terms and conditions. Thereafter a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioners, to which the petitioners submitted their reply. Thereafter the impugned orders came to be passed based upon the resolutions in respect of which the aforesaid prayers have been made for quashing the same and the affiliation of the petitioner no.2 college came to be withdrawn. The aforesaid action is the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition. The petitioners challenge the report of Dr. Warangule Patil Committee dated 4.6.2009 on the ground that even if the report is accepted in toto, no statutory authority could arrive at a decision of taking drastic action of withdrawal of affiliation. The petitioners also challenge the report of Dr. Dhaigude Committee on the ground that after the submission of the report the premises of the petitioner college were shifted to a rented premises and, 3 therefore, the shortcomings which were noticed in the said report lose their significance. It is also urged before us that the explanation submitted by the petitioners has not been taken into consideration by the respondent authorities before the orders impugned in the present petition came to be passed by which the affiliation has been withdrawn. It is urged before us that the action of the respondent no.1 University is an arbitrary action and has been effected in violation of principles of natural justice and is tainted with material irregularities. 3. On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondent University has filed its affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply at paragraph 4 it is stated that section 81 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 provides conditions for grant of affiliation and recognition and the management is duty bound to comply with the undertakings submitted by the management. It is further stated that section 91 of the said Act provides for withdrawal of the affiliation or recognition in the event the affiliated college fails to comply with the conditions of affiliation as are provided in section 81 after issuance of a show cause notice. The respondent no.1 University states that though the petitioner institution was started in the year 1999, yet the required infrastructure was not made available to the students. The University had earlier constituted a Committee and considering the report submitted by the Committee the affiliation of the petitioner college was continued upon the undertaking furnished by the petitioner institution on conditions of complying with the 4 undertakings. It is the stand of the respondent University that despite several opportunities and chances to improve the quality of education and infrastructure, the petitioner institution failed to remove the deficiencies and, therefore, the University has taken the decision of withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner college. It is stated at paragraph 6 of the affidavit in reply that there were several deficiencies which were required to be removed by the petitioner institution and since the petitioner institution had failed to remove the deficiencies, a Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. D.B. Dhaigude came to be constituted. The Committee submitted its report on 15.11.2006 pointing out several deficiencies. Upon receipt of the said report the University had called for explanation from the petitioner institution and the petitioner institution by letter dated 2.11.2007 submitted its explanation. The aforesaid explanation was placed before the Academic Council and the Academic Council in its meeting dated 11.6.2008 resolved that a show cause notice under section 91 of the Maharashtra Universities Act be issued to the petitioner college. Pursuant to the resolution passed by the Academic Council, a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner institution calling for explanation as to why the affiliation should not be withdrawn. The petitioner was called upon to submit its explanation within 30 days. The aforesaid show cause notice issued to the petitioner institution is dated 28.6.2008. Upon receipt of the said show cause notice the petitioner institution submitted its reply under the signature of Principal, dated 30.7.2008 stating that the college was attempting to 5 remove the deficiencies. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner institution was under the signature of the Principal, the University directed the petitioner college to submit its explanation under the signature of the Secretary. Another Committee came to be constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr.Ankush Kadam and the Committee submitted its report on 25.8.2008. In the said report several deficiencies were pointed out and, therefore, the Committee recommended that affiliation should not be granted unless and until deficiencies were removed. The respondents deny that the Board of College and University Development had passed a resolution dated 8.8.2008 which is annexed to the petition as Exh.P-11. It is further pointed out by the respondents in their affidavit in reply that the Secretary of the petitioner institution submitted its explanation by a communication dated 5.10.2008 in which it was stated that the management was trying to remove the deficiencies as early as possible. 4. The respondents contend that the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 30.7.2008 and 5.10.2008 and the report of the Committee of Dr. Dhaigude and Dr. Kadam were placed before the Board of College and University Development in its meeting dated 21.11.2008. The aforesaid Board resolved to recommend to the Academic Council for withdrawal of the affiliation from the academic year 2008-2009 as the petitioner institution had failed to comply with the conditions provided under section 81 of the act. The respondents in their affidavit in reply 6 have explained as to how there is a reference to the resolution passed by the Board of College and University Development dated 8.8.2008 though no such resolution was passed by the said Board. It is further stated that in the light of the resolution passed by the Academic Council dated 29.11.2008, the affiliation came to be withdrawn from the Academic year 2009-2010. Though the affiliation came to be withdrawn, another Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr.Warangule Patil visited the college on 1.6.2009 and submitted its report on 4.6.2009 pointing out the various deficiencies which were existing and the lack of sufficient books in the Library. It is further stated that the report of Dr. Warangule Patili Committee was placed before the Academic Council and the Council by its resolution dated 5.6.2009 resolved that considering the report of the Committees, since the petitioner college had failed to remove the deficiencies, the earlier resolution dated 29.11.2008 came to be confirmed. 5. The scope of judicial review in respect of withdrawal of affiliation is extremely limited. The procedure which is provided under the Act has been observed. Show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit its reply. The replies submitted by the petitioner institution clearly indicated that the petitioner institution had stated that it was trying to remove the deficiencies. In the light of the existence of deficiencies, the action of withdrawal of affiliation has been initiated by the respondent - University. This Court cannot function as a 7 Court of appeal and examine the decision arrived at by the University. This Court does not have the necessary expertise to judge whether the deficiencies, in fact, were of such magnitude as to warranting the withdrawal of the affiliation. All reasonable opportunity has been made available to the petitioner for removal of the deficiencies which the petitioner institution has failed to remove. In that light of the matter, therefore, the decision arrived at by the respondent University for withdrawal of the affiliation cannot be interfered with in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents annexed to the petition and the reply, we are satisfied that there has been no breach of the principles of natural justice and in that light of the matter, therefore, no interference is called for. If the petitioner institution has removed the deficiencies and today no deficiencies are existing, nothing prevents the petitioner institution from submitting its application afresh or submitted its report to the respondents. 6. In that light of the matter, therefore, we do not see any merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/wp4814.09