-9 ) IBI|I]i in: i'i. 3^' HiGH COURTOF JUDiCATURE CHHATTiSGARH: BILASPUR Sintjte Bench: - Hon'ble Shri S.R. NAYAK, CJ WRiT PETiT! 6o6o OF Petitioner: Resppndente: P.R. Shri Dhaneshwari Manava.Vikas Mandai. through Hemant Thakre, S/o Shyamlal Thakre, Aged about29 yrs. Occupanon : Assistant Professor Danteshwari Collsgeof Horticuiture, Raipur, R/o Babla Complex, V!P Road, Raipur (C.G.) The State of Chhattisgarh Throygh: Secretary, Dspartment ofAgriculture, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) Vice Ghanceilor, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalay Krishak Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Registrar, Indira Gandht Krishi Vishwavidyaiay Krishak Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Ghairman, Board ; of Management, Indira Gandhi, Krishi Vishwavidyalay KrishakNagar, Raipur(C.G.) ;HU. Present: MrB,MameedaSidcJiqui,lgam$dcoun5eiforthepetitioner. | Mr. Sandeep Dubey, leamed Govt. Advocate for the State of Chhattjsaam. , ORDER ' [Passedoti2iZndofNoventbeT 20051 ? < —a.- $, The petitioner—Sociaty has esteblished an Agricutture Colfege and the same is affiliated to Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, the 3econd respondent herein. The second respondent - University granted affiliation to th«petitioner Collaga on 03-12-2001. Whea it eams to the notice of tha University that the petitioner - Society as well as similarly circumstanced certain other Societies in whose favour affiliations were granted in the year 2001 dld not posssss required infrastructure faciiities to estabiish and run Agncu!t"re Colleges in terms of the statutory regulation, they in'rtlated action to disaffiliate those Colleges. At that stage, tt-ie petitioner - Society and othera made representations to the University to re-conaider the decision and that led to the University constituting a Committee to inspect infrastructure facilities provided in the Coiieges. That Committee havin< inspected the Cbiieges submitied its repprt ciassifying aii tha Colleges Into three categories and the petitioner's College is included in the second category. In She second catsgory, those Colieges which had made marglna! Improvement in providlng Infrastructure faciiitles are included. Though initial!y there was a proposal to disaffiliate the petltioner's Cotlege, it appears, on the basis of the report of the Oommittee, the University did not pursue the action to disaffiliate the petitioners cotlege, but, directed the petitionar's College not to maka admissiQn for the academic year 2005-2006. Thereaftenwards, the University on the basis of the infrastrucSure faciiities available in the petitioner's Coilege, has fixed the intake at 48 thsreby reduclng the intake from 96 to 48. Being aggrieyed by the said action, the present writ petltion is filed. 2. I have heard Mrs. Hameeda Siddiqul, iearned counsei fcr the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Dubsy, tearned Govt. Advocats, forthe State. "7 f -•s- K\ 11] ;1 'i^--' •t. 3. it was contended by Mrs. Siddiqui that the action of the University in reducing the intake to 48 as against 96 granted in the year 2001 i's arbitrary and unreasonable. Accordlng to the learned counsel, the petitioner's College has all the infrastructure faciiittes to impart education for 96 students. This clalm of the petitioner as put forth by its 'earned counsel has been contested by the other side. 4. As held and reiterated in umpteen number of pronouncemsnts of the Suprems Court and High Gourts, in revtewinfl academic dectsions, the Constitutional Courts should be slcw and the decision of the academic bodies oannot be upset lightly uniess it is shown that the decjsion is tainted by mala fide, factual or legat. The Committee constituted by the University to inspsct, having inspectad the petitioner's Colisge has submitted a repqrt in which it is pointed oyt that the requtred infrastructure faciiities as reciuired by ths resylaSions are not fuily provided and improvements made by She petitioner's Coltege are only rriarginai. Therefore, the Uniyerslty, In a!l fairness Instead of disaffiliating the petitioner's College thought it appropriate not to disaffiliate, but, with a lesser intake and accordinglythe Universily has reduced the intake from 96 to 48. Such an action cannot be condemned as arbitrary and unreasonable. No ground is made out to mterfere with ths impughecl decision of the University on any permissibte grounds of judiciai review. The wrif petitionis, therefore, dismissed. IVIrs. Siddiqui would, however, submit that as on today the petitioner's coilegs has made improvemeritsiiri^l providjng infrastructure facinties and theretore, the petltioner's college Imay^ be permitted to maire one more representatton to the Unh/ersity tp^ consider its request for more intake and to regularize the exsegsl admissions made. Ifthe asserfion made by the learnsdcoyns :SiiS;!i!.! llilll ^!;lla s» ifflll:B aiiiii! m .1^;l -•"f D -^- and if any representation is mad®by the petitioner to tha University for enhancing the intake or to regularizethe excess admissions made bythe pstitioner's Coiiege, it Is for the Unlversity So considersuch request and pass appropriate orders In accordance wi law. It is not for us to express any opinion. ;' Chief Justice .'/•^*^ S-ypy^ w