State of Madhya Pradesh vs People's University and Another

K.K. Trivedi, J.—This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review/modification/recalling of the order dated 06.01.2012 passed in W.P. No. 22021/2011. Though at length arguments were made on merits, touching the question of specific finding given by this Court to the effect whether the State Government had any role to play in making of first Statute and first Ordinance of any private University under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Niji Vishwa Vidyalaya (Sthapana Avam Sanchalan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (herein after referred to as ''Act''), subsequently a preliminary objection was raised with respect to maintainability of the writ petition before a Single Bench of this Court in terms of the provisions of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 and it has been put forth by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the writ petition itself was to be heard and decided by a Division Bench of this Court, the order under review is required to be recalled. This particular aspect is required to be examined first and, therefore, the review petition is being considered on this aspect first. Shri V.K. Tankha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has contended that such an objection is being raised at such a belated stage when all such actions were taken by the petitioner State, against the respondent No. 1 only after passing of the order in the writ petition by this Court. It is contended that such objection is not required to be considered at this belated stage. Secondly it is contended that the only prayer made for issuance of mandamus in the writ filed by the respondent No. 1 was to the effect to direct the State Government to publish the first Statute and first Ordinance duly approved by the Regulatory Commission. The documents were placed on record and it was pointed out by the Regulatory Commission itself, which was being represented by a Counsel, that such approval has already been granted by the Commission and it is now the responsibility of the State to publish the same in the gazette. This being so, as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, there was no scope left with respect to the making of the first statute nor any modification in the same could have been ordered by the State Government and, therefore, this Court was right in disposing of the writ petition by the order sought to be reviewed. It is submitted that the said order is not to be recalled or modified.

The Act contemplates establishment of Niji Vishwa Vidyalaya within the State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 2 in Chapter-I of the Act prescribes the definitions of the words used in this Act. According to Section 2(n), ''Ordinances'' means the ordinances of the private university. Section 2(t) defines the ''Regulatory Body'' which means a Central or a State regulatory body established by the Central or State Government for laying down norms and conditions for ensuring standards of higher education. Section 2(u) of this Section gives the definition of ''Regulatory Commission'', which means Regulatory Commission established u/s 36. ''Regulatory Council'' has been defined in Section 2(v) of the Act, which means the All India Council for Technical Education, the Bar Council of India, the Council of Architects, the Medical Council of India, the Paramedical Council of Madhya Pradesh and the Pharmacy Council of India, established within the meaning of the relevant Act for the constitution of the said Councils. The ''Statutes'' is defined in Section 2(zb), which means the statutes made under the provisions of the Act.

The objects of the establishment of private universities are given in Chapter-II in Section 3 of the Act, which reads to provide instructions, teaching and training in higher education, to create higher levels of intellectual abilities and also include to maintain the standards of degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions in accordance with the norms laid-down by the University Grants Commission and the related regulatory body or regulatory council. Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Act deals with the making of application, its consideration, approval and acceptance and establishment of a private university, which has no material importance for consideration in this review application. This Court is mainly concerned with the review of its own order and it is to be examined whether such an order granting an innocuous prayer made by the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition, was within the jurisdiction of a single Bench of this Court or not.

Making of first Statute and first Ordinance is prescribed in Section 26 and 28 of the Act. The procedure as laid-down is that the private university as soon as it is established, is required to make the first statute, which is to be formulated by its governing body. The same has to be placed before the Regulatory Commission for its consideration. The Regulatory Commission is required to approve the same within two months from the date of its receipt and if it is necessary or if it is required to be, shall suggest suggestions or make change in the first statute. The said suggestions are to be notified to the governing body of the private university, which is required to consider the same and if agreed, to incorporate the same in the first statute or to make submission before the Regulatory Commission. The Regulatory Commission may accept or may not accept such a submission of the governing body. If the Regulatory Commission decides not to accept such submission, the first statute is required to be approved with the modifications suggested by the Regulatory Commission. Similar is the provision made u/s 28 of the Act, which deals with making of first Ordinances. The only difference is that the first Ordinances of the university are to be made by the Vice Chancellor of the private university and not by the governing body. The enforcement of the statutes and ordinances and the regulations is only by publication in the official gazette.

Now it is to be seen whether the Regulatory Commission has any power to ask for any guidance from the State Government or to act in any manner so as to seek approval from the State Government before granting approval of the first Statutes or first Ordinances. Section 36 in Chapter-IV of the Act deals with the constitution of the Regulatory Commission and the opening sentence of the said Section in sub-section (1) is that the Regulatory Commission shall be established by the State Government 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 the students and reasonable service conditions of the employees. The Regulatory Commission is made to function under the general control of the Visitor, i.e. the Governor of the State. Now what is the meaning of word ''interface'' and whether could it be said that the Regulatory Commission is nothing but an agent of the State Government to act in between the State Government and the central regulatory bodies for the aforesaid purpose. The literary meaning of ''interface'' as given in Oxford Advanced Learner''s Dictionary, is a device or connection or program that joins one device or system to another. The other more appropriate meaning is that the point where subjects, systems etc. meet and affect each other. Thus, the Regulatory Commission set up under the Act has to be treated as a bridge in between the State Government and the other central regulatory bodies for the purpose of ensuring appropriate procedure of teaching etc. as given in sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act. Naturally if such interface is required to get something examined, it has every right to refer the matter to the higher authorities of the State.

In the case in hand though nothing has been placed on record in the review petition but in response to the connected writ petition, documents have been filed and it has been pointed out that the Regulatory Commission was of the view that the first Statutes made by the respondent No. 1 was required to be referred to the Law Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh for seeking approval whether such first Statutes were in conformity with different laws made in respect of establishing a higher teaching institutions or not. The matter was thereafter returned by the Law Department saying that it was required to give legal opinion only on the legal issues and not in such a case where the statutes were required to be made. Since the medical education is also one of the part of studies and the department of the private university, the matter was thereafter referred to the medical education department of Government of Madhya Pradesh and it was decided that certain changes were required to be made with respect to the admission of the students in the private university. This being so, after the matter travelled up to the Chief Minister of the State, the subsequent orders were passed, of course after the final disposal of the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 on 06.01.2012.

It is to be examined aptly whether making of first statute was a subject matter of consideration which falls within the jurisdiction of a Division Bench of this Court as per provisions of Chapter-IV of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 (herein after referred as ''Rules''). Rule 2 of the said chapter contains different heads and the matters, which are to be listed before the Division Bench of this Court. Clause (7) of the said Rules prescribes listing of a writ petition. Sub-clause (e) of Clause (7) of Rule 2 of the said Chapter prescribes that all writ petitions relating to admission to and recognition/affiliation of professional education courses are required to be heard by a Division Bench of this Court. The making of the first statute as prescribed under the Act clearly lays-down that the statute is required to be made for making the provisions regarding policy of admission including reservation of seats, specially for students of below poverty line family, scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, other backward classes, physically handicapped and other categories. If the first statute contains such a matter, they were to be examined only and only by a Division Bench of this Court and not by a single Bench.

For the purpose whether an innocuous prayer was made in W.P. No. 22021/2011 by the respondent No. 1 and whether such a prayer could have been grated by a single Bench, the entire pleadings in the writ petition are looked into. Right from para 1 the claim made by the respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid writ petition was that after establishment of the university, the respondent No. 1 has made the first statute and first ordinance for the purpose of initiating process of admission of the students in the university. Since time bound action was not being taken even after approval of the said statute and ordinance by the Regulatory Commission, by the State Government for publication of the same, the delay was causing hurdle in the ways of respondent No. 1 in granting admission to the students of the university. It was highlighted that the Apex Court in case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, has fixed a time bound programme for granting admission in the Post Graduate Specialized Courses in any of the universities. It was contended that if the delay is caused, the first statute and first ordinance are not published, the said act would be violative of the time programme prescribed by the Apex Court in case of Mradul Dhar (supra). The entire petition was based on this particular aspect and in no other than specific words it was said that the schedule of admission extended by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case is being violated and, therefore, first statutes were required to be published without any loss of time. This being so, in fact the requirement of making of first statute and first ordinance as highlighted by the respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid writ petition was nothing but admission of the students in the university. This being so, the matter was required to be considered only and only by a Division Bench of this Court and not by a Single Bench.

This being so, there was a folly on the part of the Registry of this Court to list the case before a single Bench. However, at no point of time though there was a representation of the respondents of the writ petition, this objection was never raised on account of which the error apparent on the face of record relating to the jurisdiction of the Court was committed and writ petition was disposed of by the single Bench of this Court on 06.01.2012. However, if such an objection was not raised at the relevant time, the error apparent on the face of record is not to be ignored and the order under review is required to be recalled. In view of the aforesaid, the review application is allowed. The order dated 06.01.2012 passed in W.P. No. 22021/2011 is hereby recalled. The said writ petition is restored to its original number. Since this Bench was nominated by Hon''ble the Chief Justice for hearing of all such cases, this order be brought to the notice of Hon''ble the Chief Justice for seeking a direction to list the matter before the Division Bench of this Court. This writ petition be also tagged with W.P. No. 2386/2012 and be listed before appropriate Division Bench as per roster after obtaining the order of Hon''ble the Chief Justice.