1954 (10) TMI 47 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Chancellor acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity under Section 42 of the Allahabad University Act, 1921.
2. Whether the High Court has the authority under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an order made by a tribunal on the ground that it is erroneous in law.
3. Whether the Chancellor's order dated 20-8-1954 is erroneous in law.
4. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretion to refrain from interference in University matters.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Chancellor acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity under Section 42 of the Allahabad University Act, 1921:
The court examined whether the Chancellor, in exercising his powers under Section 42 of the Act, acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. The section states that the Chancellor's decision on whether any person has been duly elected or appointed as, or is entitled to be, a member of any authority or other body of the University is final. The court referred to the decision in 'Province of Bombay v. K. S. Advani, AIR 1950 SC 222', which established that the duty to act judicially is imposed if the enactment either specifically or by necessary implication requires it. The court concluded that the Chancellor was required to act judicially because the decision affected the legal rights of the petitioner.

2. Whether the High Court has the authority under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an order made by a tribunal on the ground that it is erroneous in law:
The court considered whether it could quash an order made by an inferior tribunal on the ground of an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in 'T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440', which stated that the High Court could issue a writ of certiorari to correct errors of law revealed on the face of an order or decision. The court also examined English case law, including 'Reg. v. Bolton (1341) 1 QB 66' and 'Walsall Overseers v. London and North Western Rly. Co. (1878) 4 AC 30', which supported the principle that certiorari could be used to correct errors of law on the face of the record. The court concluded that it had the authority to quash the Chancellor's order if it found an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

3. Whether the Chancellor's order dated 20-8-1954 is erroneous in law:
The court examined the Chancellor's interpretation of the proviso to Clause (ii) of the first Statute relating to the Executive Council. The Chancellor had decided that the petitioner's change in status from an 'ex officio' member to a member in his individual capacity ended his membership of the Executive Council. The court found that the proviso's language, "continues to be a member of that body," was plain and unqualified. The court held that the proviso did not require the member to continue in the same capacity, only that he continued to be a member of the Court. Since the petitioner remained a member of the Court, the court concluded that the Chancellor's order was erroneous in law.

4. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretion to refrain from interference in University matters:
The Advocate-General argued that the court should refrain from interfering in University matters to maintain the University's autonomy. The court acknowledged its reluctance to interfere in educational management but emphasized that its discretion must be exercised on judicial principles. The court found no conduct on the petitioner's part that would disentitle him from relief. Consequently, the court issued a writ of certiorari to quash the Chancellor's order dated 20-8-1954.

Additional Considerations:
The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus, but the court found no evidence that the University authorities intended to interfere with the petitioner following the quashing of the Chancellor's order. Therefore, this prayer was denied. The court made no order as to costs.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the Chancellor's order dated 20-8-1954, holding it to be erroneous in law, and declined to issue a writ of mandamus due to lack of evidence of intended interference by the University authorities.