People'S University vs State Of M.P. & Anr

3. The appellant was established under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Avam Sanchalan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act’) as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Avam Sanchalan) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2011. In terms of Section 9(2) of the Act, the appellant is deemed to have been incorporated with effect from 4.5.2011 i.e. the date on which the Amendment Act was published in the official gazette.

4. After its establishment and incorporation, the appellant framed the First Statutes under Section 26 and the First Ordinances under Section 28 of the Act and submitted the same to the Madhya Pradesh Private University Regulatory Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’), which was established by the State Government under Section 36(1) of the Act for the purpose of providing a regulatory mechanism at the State level and for working as an interface between the State Government and the central regulatory bodies for the purpose of ensuring appropriate standards of teaching, examination, research, extension programme, protection of interest of students and reasonable service conditions of the employees. The First Ordinances of the appellant were approved by the Commission and were forwarded to the State Government vide letter dated 23.9.2011 for publication in the official gazette. The First Statutes framed by the appellant were provisionally approved by the Commission and sent to the State Government vide letter dated 24.10.2011 with a request that the same may be got examined from the Law Department and made available to the Commission with the amendment, if any. In that letter it was also mentioned that if no amendment was proposed by the State Government then the First Statutes be published in the official gazette as per the requirement of Section 35 of the Act. The English translation of that letter, which has been filed with the special leave petition as Annexure P-6, is reproduced below:

5. After 1½ months, the Registrar of the appellant sent letter dated 7.12.2011 to the Principal Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Higher Education Department for publication of the First Statutes and the First Ordinances. After another 17 days, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.22021/2011 and prayed for issue of a mandamus to respondent No.1 to get the First Statutes and the First Ordinances published in the official gazette. (The date mentioned in the copy of the writ petition annexed with the special leave petition as Annexure P-8 is 24.12.2011.)

6. The learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition was listed on 29.12.2011 ordered notice to the respondents for 4.1.2012. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2 on 2.1.2012, reference was made to Sections 7, 8, 9, 26, 28 and 35 of the Act and it was averred that the appellant had made admissions in complete violation of the undertaking given in terms of Section 7 (iv) of the Act despite the fact that it was repeatedly warned vide communications dated 26.3.2011, 30.7.2011, 8.9.2011, 9.11.2011 and 30.11.2011 not to do so. However, the Commission admitted that it had sent letters dated 23.9.2011 and 24.10.2011 to the State Government in the matter of publication of the First Ordinances and the First Statutes.

7. The writ petition was listed for admission hearing on 6.1.2012, i.e., two days after the date specified in the notice. On that day, the counsel appearing for respondent No.1 sought time to seek instructions. The learned Single Judge did not accept his request and finally disposed of the writ petition by recording the following order:

8. In the meanwhile, the First Statutes and the First Ordinances framed by the appellant were examined by the State Government and a decision was taken on 16.12.2011 at the level of the Principal Secretary, Medical Department that the Commission be asked to inform the appellant that admission in Medical, Dental and other courses relating to Health Sciences should be made as per the directions issued by the Medical Education Department of the State Government, Medical Council of India / Dental Council of India (MCI / DCI) and other regulatory bodies and the lists of admitted students be made available to those bodies, the Director, Medical Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Committee constituted under M.P. Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sansthan (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007. This decision was approved by the concerned Minister and the Chief Minister in the third week of January, 2012. (These facts are borne out from the files produced by Shri B.S. Banthia, learned counsel representing the State of M.P.) Thereafter, the Secretary of the Commission sent two letters dated 28.1.2012 to the Vice Chancellor of the appellant and conveyed the instructions received from the State Government. By two other letters dated 6.2.2012, the Commission approved the amendments suggested by the State Government in Para 3(b) of Statute No.18 that admission in Medical, Dental and other courses relating to Health Sciences shall be made according to the directions issued by the Medical Education Department of the State Government and the regulatory bodies, like, MCI/DCI and the lists of admitted students be forwarded to the concerned authorities.

9. On receipt of the aforesaid communications, the appellant filed MCC No.180/2012 in Writ Petition No.22021/2011 and prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to implement order dated 6.1.2012. The learned Single Judge issued notice on 8.2.2012 and fixed the case for 17.2.2012. The appellant also filed Writ Petition No. 2386/2012 for quashing the directions contained in letters dated 6.2.2012. The High Court entertained the writ petition on 10.2.2012, issued notice to the respondents and stayed the operation of communications dated 6.2.2012.

17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Now, Writ Petition No.22021/2011 be listed before the Division Bench of the High Court and be heard along with Writ Petition No.2386/2012. We request the concerned Bench of the High Court to make an endeavour to dispose of both the writ petitions as early as possible but latest within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. It is made clear that the parties shall be free to raise all legally permissible contentions and the High Court shall decide the writ petitions without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.