AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O. P. Jain, J.—The brief facts leading to this writ petition are that S. D. College Association is a Society registered under Society Registration Act of 1860. In the year 1954 on the request of the Association the State Government acquired 22.07 acres of land on the outskirts of The Association entered into an agreement with the Governor or U. P. on 25111984 and the same was published in U. P. gazette dated 4121984. The Association was put in possession of the land on 1261985. The Association runs various institutions and one of them is S. D. Post Graduate College which has a separate Managing Committee. There is another Managing Committee for the affairs of the Association but the members of both the Committees are common.
2 In 1992 the election of She Managing Committee took place and certain office bearers were elected. At that time Mr. L.N. Mittal was Principal of the S. D. Post Graduate College ''hereinafter called the College). On 2781994 the Managing Committee of the College passed a resolution directing The Principal to stop functioning as Principal of the institution on account of some alleged irregularities committed by the Principal. By an order dated 3181994 the City Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar restrained the Managing Committee of the College from implementing the resolution dated 2781994. This order was reiterated by City Magistrate on 591994 and it was mentioned that the order has been passed in consultation with the District Magistrate 01 Muzaffarnagar.
Being aggrieved against the order of the City Magistrate the present petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 30786/94. In that writ petition two orders were passed on 2191994 and 51C1994 by a Division Bench of this Court. The Court stayed the operation of the order of the City Magistrate and ordered him to personally present himself before the Court.
In the meantime a notice Annexure VIII, dated 2371994 was issued by the State Government calling upon the Management of College to show cause why Authorised Controller should not be appointed for the management of the College ander Section 57/58 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1974. In this notice it was stated by the Government that a large chunk of land belonging to the College has been used by the Management of the College for constructing a Nursing Home some shops residential quarters and temple etc. It was also alleged that the income derived from the Nursing Home etc. is not being deposited in the account of the Degree College. The notice further alleged that the fee realised from the students and the income from the property belonging to the College is being used for other institutions and that a Public School, Hospital and some shops are being run in an unauthorised manner. The Boys Fund of College has been transferred to another institution known as S. D. Medical Institute. The notice called upon the Managing Committee of the College to show cause as to why an order under Section 58, subclause (1) of U. P. State Universities Act of 1974 may not be passed.
On receipt of notice Annexure VIII the Managing Committee sent a reply which is Annexure IX. In this reply it was stated that the College is not a juristic person and the Association is the body which got the land acquired and paid the compensation and has full authority to utilise this, land for public purpose. The allegation that the land endowed to the college has been used for some other purposes was emphatically denied. The construction of shops was also denied though it was admitted that S. D. Medical Institute and Research Centre has a chemist shop attached to it.
After considering the reply submitted by the Managing Committee of the College the State Government passed impugned order AnnexureX dated 6101994 and appointed District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar as authorised Controller of the College after superseding the Managing Committee. This order was to remain effective for one year.
According to the petitioners the District Magistrate delegated his powers as authorised Controller to the City Magistrate who brought back the same Principal i. e. Sri L. N. Mittal. The City Magistrate ordered Sri Sobaran Singh acting Principal to furnish the papers relating to Writ Petition No. 30786/94 so that the writ petition may be withdrawn.
By an interim order dated 1111994 this Court ordered that the District Magistrate should himself work as authorised Controller and it was further ordered that the authorised Controller will not take any steps to withdraw Writ Petition No. 30786/94.
I have heard Sri S. P. Gupta senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is mat a fide and has been passed at the instance of the City Magistrate and District Magistrate who wanted to nullify the order passed by this Court it Writ Petition No. 30786/94. It is. also argued that notice AnnexureVIII issued by the State Government is vague and does not give necessary particulars and therefore, the petitioner was handicapped in furnishing a proper reply to the notice. It was also argued that irregularities, if any, were committeed by the Managing Committees which were managing the affairs of the College prior to 1992. There is no irregularity so far the Managing Committee elected in 1992 is concerned. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 1984 UPLBEC 813 (SC) The Committee of Management of D.A.V. Degree College, Muzaffarnagar v. State of U. P.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited 1993 (22) ALR 352 The Committee of Management Dharam Samaj College, Aligarh and another v. The State ofV. P. and others in support of the contention that it is obligatory on the Government to mention in the show cause notice necessary facts and material particulars relating to diversion of misapplication or misappropriation of property to the detriment of the college. It was also observed in this authority that without such particulars the notice will be an empty formality and useless ritual. Again it was observed in para 8 of the above authority that the Government can take action under Section 57/58 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act of 1974 only in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the person to whom the notice is issued should know the case regarding which a reply is to be submitted by him. A perusal of show cause notice dated 23rd July, 1994, Annexure ''8'' to the writ petition, shows that it alleges collusion of the management with the Principal and taking over of possession of vacant land and diverting it for unauthorised construction. The notice also alleges that the income derived from these constructions is not being credited to the account of the College. It is also alleged that the fee received from the students and the income of the property belonging to the College is being spent over some other institutions which are run by the petitioner. Similar allegations have been made regarding Boys Fund etc.
The grievance of the petitioner is that this show cause notice is in general terms and no particulars, like the date and amount etc. are specified in the notice. The notice was also not accompanied by any document on the basis of which the State Government may have formed its opinion to take action under Sections 57/58 of the Act. There is considerable force in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was handicapped in filing a proper reply.
It is also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the land was not acquired for the College but for the S. D. College Association which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a separate legal entity. In ray opinion, this contention cannot be accepted because the land was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The relevant Gazette Notification is Annexure CA1 which shows that the application for acquisition was no doubt mode by S. D. College Association but the purpose for which the land was acquired was the construction of building and play ground for S. D. College, Muzaffarnagar. This agreement also provides that in case of a breach of any of the terms and conditions the Governor shall be entitled to reenter on the whole of the land without payment of any compensation to the Association and upon such reentry the interest of the Association in the said land shall cease and determine. This agreement also provides that in case of any dispute or difference the Arbitrator named in the agreement shall be appointed whose decision shall be final and conclusive and binding on the parties.
Therefore, this Court does not agree with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the S. D. College Association was free to use the land acquired for the Colleges for running other institutions. This is, however, true that the agreement contains a machinery for its own enforcement. It S. D. College Association has committed any breach of the terms on which the land was acquired by the State Government for the college, the Government is free to take action as per the agreement but such alleged breach of agreement should not be a basis for taking action under Sections 57/58 of the Act particularly when there is no evidence that any construction was made on the land belonging to the College after 1985 or after the present Managing Committee came into power.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited ,1981 UPLBEC 893, Committee of Management of D, A. V. Degree College, Muzaffarnagar v. State of U. P. in which it has been held in para 5 that no action under Sections 57 or 58 of the Act can legally be taken against the petitioner for illegalities or irregularities committed by their predecessor. If the previous committee had committed some illegality or irregularity action should be taken against that committee of management but in no circumstance the State Government can take action against the petitioner who were elected as the new committee of Management. In the instant case, the present Managing Committee has been elected in 1992 and, therefore the contention on behalf of the petitioner that it cannot be held responsible for anything which may have been done in the year 1985 or earlier to that is correct.
Learned Standing Counsel has placed emphasis on an audit report Annexure CA.9. This document runs into 33 typed pages and has many annexures. The covering letter of AnnexureCA9 shows that it was issued on 8th September, 1994. The shows cause notice, Annexure ''8'' bears the date 23rd July, 1994. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in arguing that the contents of the Audit Report cannot be taken into consideration for justifying some action against the petitioner because the petitioner never got any opportunity to reply to various points, raised in the Audit Report, Annexure ''9''.
In view of the above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that the notice issued to the petitioner was vague and it did not contain necessary particulars which were necessary for giving a proper reply. This Court is also of the view that issuing of the notice in July, 1994 cannot be justified on the basis of the facts coming to light in the Audit report of September, 1994. However, some of the facts mentioned in the Audit Report, Annexure ''9'' are very serious and it will be open to the State Government to take action against the petitioner on the basis of the material collected by the Audit party provided the substance of the important charges with necessary particulars is given to the institution and an opportunity is afforded to give a proper reply. In view of the above findings that the notice is vague the impugned order, Annexure10 cannot be upheld.
As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, (Annexure ''10'' to the writ petition) dated 6th October, 1994 is quashed. This will, however, not prevent the State Government from issuing a fresh notice to S. D. College management on the basis of the facts coming to the notice of the Government from the Audit Report or from any other source. If the State Government chooses to issue fresh notice to the management it should give all necessary particulars in the notice and enclose the necessary documents along with it.