Pinaki Ranjan Bharati vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The Court : Upon hearing parties, order dated 8th February, 2018 was made. It would serve the present purpose to extract the following therefrom :-

“Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appears for Rabindra Bharati University, and submits, the University Grants Commission (Regulations and

Directives) prohibit grant of recognition to petitioner’s institution as hit by the bar therein on distance education. Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate

appears for UGC and submits, the territorial bar is restricted to the territory of the State in which the University is situated. Mr. Mukherjee, learned

Advocate, Additional Government Pleader appears for State and submits that this petition has been filed on a cause already decided.

Grievance of petitioner, as the Court has been able to appreciate, is that he seeks recognition for his institution. This has been denied him in earlier

granting provisional recognition and thereafter actually denying the institution’s proper recognition. Records reveal statements that petitioner did

not apply for renewal of provisional recognition and it appears that there is a presumption of non-fulfillment of conditions. This had been considered by

the said judgment as would appear from the extract above.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court directs the University to either grant recognition to the institution of petitioner with all its consequences or put in an

affidavit giving reasons as to why it cannot do so. List the writ petition under the heading `To be Mentioned’ on 22nd February, 2018 as prayed for

on behalf of the University for it to make known to Court its position.â€​

The University has filed an affidavit relying on which Mr. Chakraborty makes his submissions. His first submission is that petitioner had not put in

requisite fees for getting recognition for his institution as directed by order dated 2nd September, 2008 and thereafter when he filed for contempt, the

contempt application stood dismissed. So much so, petitioner had applied for recalling of the dismissal order, which application was also dismissed.

He relies on judgment dated 9th June, 1993 in Kamal Krishna Acharya and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors, reported in (1994)2 CLT 445. He

submits, a Division Bench of this Court had found that an institution going by the name of `Kabitirtha’ still stood affiliated with his client. He then

relies on judgment dated 28th January, 1997, passed in petitioner’s own case and reported in AIR 1999 Cal 155. He places paragraph 8 of the

judgment to submit, petitioner has no right to run any institution by the name of `Kabitirtha’ at Subash Pally as had been held thereby. He hands up

order dated 9th September, 2015, passed by me in petitioner’s own case W.P. no.228 of 2008. Mr. Chakraborty emphasizes petitioner’s case

recorded in that order was that he was Founder Principal and Ex-officio Secretary of original Kabitirtha College at Subash Nagar/Kabita Nagar,

Bongaon, North 24 Parganas and the College is affiliated to Rabindra Bharati University. Hence, according to Mr. Chakraborty, there can be no order

in favour of petitioner for granting his institution affiliation when he himself has said that his institution is affiliated.

Lastly, Mr. Chakraborty relies on a judgment of Supreme Court in Bharat Amratlal Kothari & Anr. Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors.,

reported in (2010)1 SCC 234, in particular to paragraphs 29 and 30, which are extracted below :-

“29. The approach of the High Court in granting relief not prayed for cannot be approved by this Court. Every petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution must contain a relief clause. Whenever the petitioner is entitled to or is claiming more than one relief, he must pray for all the reliefs.

Under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the plaintiff omits, except with the leave of the court, to sue for any particular relief

which he is entitled to get, he will not afterwards be allowed to sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

Though the provisions of the Code are not made applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the general principles made in

the Civil Procedure Code will apply even to the writ petitions. It is, therefore, incumbent on the petitioner to claim all reliefs he seeks from the court.

Normally, the court will grant only those reliefs specifically prayed for by the petitioner. Though the court has very wide discretion in granting relief,

the court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the

petitioner.â€​

Mr. Ibrahim Shaikh, learned Advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and draws attention to page 38 of affidavit-in-reply filed by his client. He

submits, recognition is sought by his client in the name of his institution being Rabindra Vidyatirtha Mahavidyalaya. Tender of Rs.5,000/- was made as

on 21st February, 2000, being apparent from the said disclosure. He seeks interference as prayed for. Petitioner in prayer (a) has asked for quashing

of an order dated `nil’, passed by Vice Chancellor of the University and Circular dated 11th December, 2001. This is because petitioner’s

institution had not been recognised/affiliated before year 2000 for imparting education for Junior and Senior Diploma courses. The objections of Mr.

Chakraborty is to be looked into. The first objection is that petitioner had obtained order dated 2nd September, 2008 in contempt arising out of his writ

petition W.P. no.989 of 2004. The relevant text of that order is reproduced below :-

“It is submitted by Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent University that the respondent University shall

grant recognition to the Institution of the petitioner subject to the petitioner filing a fresh declaration and/or undertaking with the University in respect

of the matters covered by the affidavit filed in this Court. Where an undertaking and/or declaration is given in Court by way of affidavit there can be

no necessity of any further declaration and/or undertaking on identical terms. The petitioner is obviously bound by the undertaking/declaration given in

Court.

Mr. Mukherjee submits that recognition shall be granted to the Institution subject to payment of the fees for renewal. The petitioner is directed to

deposit the fees for recognition and/or renewal, within a week from date. Necessary orders shall be issued by the respondent University within two

weeks thereafter. The contempt proceedings are disposed of.â€​

Petitioner had again applied to invoke contempt jurisdiction. By order dated 5th May, 2016 it was found that petitioner had not submitted renewal fees

within time stipulated by order dated 2nd September, 2008 and hence there was no contempt. This, in my opinion, is in no way a bar to petitioner’s

claim for recognition of his institution. The facts would appear from the judgments relied upon by Mr. Chakraborty. In Bimal Krishna Acharya (supra),

the Division Bench had before it the fact that an institution by the name of `Kabitirtha’ was de-recognised. The Division Bench found that dispute

regarding such de-recognition was set at rest by a Division Bench judgment in Second Appeal no.520 of 1988 having reached finality since Special

Leave Petition therefrom preferred by petitioner had failed. It appears that the Court found it must be held that the affiliation of the said institution had

not been validly revoked, cancelled or suspended and the same is still continuing and that it is also firmly established principle for which no decision is

required to be cited that an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is a nullity and accordingly the affiliation that was already

granted by the University is still continuing and the University is bound to recognise this legal position. The institution in question is the institution going

by the name “Kabitirthaâ€​.

In petitioner’s own case, reported in AIR 1997 Cal 155, a Learned Single Judge of this Court said the following :

“Again in that appeal the Division Bench, after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties on 19-8-94, recorded that there was virtually no

necessity to make any modification cancellation or recalling of the earlier order of the Division Bench and it was only observed that neither in the

order of the Division Bench nor in the order of the learned trial Judge there was anything which might debar the appellant P. R. Bharati from running

any institution, if it was permissible under law, in a different name without using the name of Kabitirtha and he might also approach the university for

affiliation under a different name and if any such application was made it would be for the university authorities to consider and dispose of the matter

in accordance with law.â€​

Things become a bit clearer now as it can be seen why petitioner is before this Court. His institution of a different name is not being granted

recognition because it was not recognised/affiliated prior to year 2000. The position as adjudicated by judgment dated 28th November, 2005 in

petitioner’s earlier writ petition WP no.989 of 2004 has become final. The objections raised by the University, as submitted on its behalf by

reliance on annexures to affidavit-inopposition filed, are not sustainable objections to resist recognition of petitioner’s institution, directed by an

order which has become final between the parties. The recognition fees have been put in, as appears from disclosure at page 38 of affidavit-in-reply.

In Bharat Amratlal Kothari (supra), Supreme Court declared that though court has very wide discretion in granting relief, court, however, cannot,

ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner. This decision is not

found applicable to the present case. Petitioner has been denied recognition of his institution on very many grounds including on the ground of

Notification dated 11th December, 2001, as his institution by the name of Rabindra Vidyatirtha Mahavidyalaya was not recognised/affiliated before

year 2000. Prayer has been made by petitioner for relief and this Court finds him entitled to directions being made.

Impugned notification dated 11th December, 2001 is not applicable to petitioner for the purpose of him obtaining recognition/affiliation with the

University in respect of his Institution, Rabindra Vidyatirtha Mahavidyalaya. The recognition fees have already been put in. The University is directed

to grant the recognition within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is disposed of. Mr. Chakraborty

prays for stay of operation of this order. The prayer is considered and rejected.