1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4929 OF 2009 Laxmanrao s/o Eknathrao Manal, Age-69 years, Occu:President, Bhartiya Sanskruti Sanwardhan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad, PTR No.F1488. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, (Through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, (Through Director, Board of College and University Development), 3) Presiding Officer, Rajle Committee, (Mr. Bhausaheb, Rajle, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Mr.P.K. Joshi Advocate i/b. Mr. Shripad Joshi Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.S. Thombre Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.P.S.Patil Advocate for Caveator. ... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 25TH JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the communication cum direction issued by the Director, Board of College and University Development dated 18th July, 2009, Exhibit D. The said communication is issued on the basis of directions of the Vice- Chancellor. By virtue of 3 the said directions the three Member Committee came to be appointed to administer the working of Rajiv Gandhi College, Karmad, Taluka and District- Aurangabad. The main purpose for which the said direction came to be issued, as stated in the communication, is that due to pending Court matters it is noticed that the administration of the said College has come to stand still position. To facilitate proper working of the College, the Vice-Chancellor issued directions to appoint three Members Committee. 3. It is noticed from the documents placed on record that there is dispute between the rival group of management of the Trust. The Trust is running the said College. The dispute between the rival group of management, is now stated to be pending before the Apex Court being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 21504 of 2008. In the said proceedings, on 13th January, 2009 the Apex Court has passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo. The said Order reads thus: 4 " Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No.2 - who is appearing in person, we are of the view that the matter requires further consideration. Let the notice issue on the special leave petition. As far as respondent 2 is concerned, since he is appearing in person, service of notice on him is waived. Since learned counsel is also appearing on behalf of respondent 4, service of notice on the said respondent be also waived. Let notice be served on the other respondents in the usual course. In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as of today, with regard to the management of the Society/Trust. But 5 we also indicate that the present management will only be entitled to continue with the day to day management of the said Society/Trust, and will not be entitled to take any major policy decision with regard to the management or the administration of the Trust, which will also include appointment of staff. The respondents will be entitled to file counter affidavit to the special leave petition within four weeks; rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. Let the matter be listed after six weeks." 4. The question is, even if the dispute between the rival group of management is pending before the Court of Law, does that vest authority in the Vice- Chancellor to take over the management and the administration of the College? The answer is emphatically, No. The administration of the Trust 6 or for that matter, of College, is a matter within the purview of enquiry undertaken by the Charity Commissioner, considering the dispute brought before it by the rival group claiming to control the management. 5. The counsel for the University, however, justified the directions issued by the Vice- Chancellor, on the basis of Section 14 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, in particular sub-section (1) and sub-section (7) thereof. Relevant provision reads thus: "Section 14. Powers and duties of Vice-Chancellor: (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal Academic and Executive Officer of the University responsible for the development of academic programmes of the university. He shall oversee and monitor the administration of the 7 academic programmes and general administration of the university to ensure efficiency and good order of the university. (7) If there are reasonable grounds for the Vice-Chancellor to believe that there is an emergency which requires immediate action to be taken, he shall take such action, as he thinks necessary, and shall at the earliest opportunity, report in writing the grounds for his belief that there was an emergency, and the action taken by him, to such authority or body as would, in the ordinary course, have dealt with the matter. In the event of a difference arising between the Vice-Chancellor and the authority or body whether there was in fact an emergency, or on the action taken (whether such action does not affect any person in the service of the university), or on both, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision shall be final: Provided that, where any such 8 action taken by the Vice-Chancellor affects any person in the service of the university, such person shall be entitled to prefer, within thirty days form the date on which he receives notice of such action, an appeal to the Management Council." 6. We have no hesitation in taking the view, that on plain language of this provision, the Vice- Chancellor can invoke his authority for proper development of academic programmes of the University or against the body or the committee of the University constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1994. This provision cannot vest authority in the Vice-Chancellor to take over the administration of a Trust or of a private College. No other provision has been brought to our notice, which can justify the direction issued by the Vice-Chancellor. Insofar as Section 14 of the Act of 1994 is concerned, as we have observed earlier, cannot be the basis to justify the order in question. Accordingly, the impugned decision 9 cannot be allowed to operate. 7. The counsel for the Petitioner, in addition, made grievance about issuance of directions by the Vice-Chancellor without giving prior notice or giving opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners or any other persons claiming to be interested in the management of the College or the Trust. The fact that the order is passed without issuing any prior notice, is not in dispute at all. Even on that ground the order will have to be set aside, since the nature of directions issued, visits with civil consequences for the Trust and in particular, the Trustees who are expected to administer the Trust and the position which obtains on account of the decision of the Order of the Apex Court dated 13th January, 2009. 8. Taking any view of the matter, this Petition should succeed and therefore the impugned decision is set aside. 10 9. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/JAN10/wp4929.09