9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1856 - SC - Indian LawsDeemed University - Judicial Review - amenability test based on the source of power - expression any person or authority used in Article 226 of the Constitution - HELD THAT - It is clear from reading of the ratio decidendi of judgment in ZEE TELEFILMS LTD ANR VERSUS UOI. ORS 2005 (2) TMI 773 - SUPREME COURT that firstly it is held therein that the BCCI discharges public duties and secondly an aggrieved party can for this reason seek a public law remedy against the BCCI under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Firstly respondent No. 1 is engaged in imparting education in higher studies to students at large. Secondly it is discharging public function by way of imparting education. Thirdly it is notified as a Deemed University by the Central Government under Section 3 of the UGC Act. Fourthly being a Deemed University all the provisions of the UGC Act are made applicable to respondent No. 1 which inter alia provides for effective discharge of the public function - namely education for the benefit of public. Fifthly once respondent No. 1 is declared as Deemed University whose all functions and activities are governed by the UGC Act alike other universities then it is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Lastly once it is held to be an authority as provided in Article 12 then as a necessary consequence it becomes amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against a deemed university. 2. Examination of whether the deemed university discharges public functions. 3. Appropriate forum for the appellant to seek redressal of her grievances. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The primary issue was whether the writ petition filed by the appellant against the deemed university (respondent No. 1) was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the writ petition, holding that the respondent was neither a State nor an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution, and thus not subject to writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, emphasizing that the test for maintainability under Article 226 is whether the body performs a public function or duty. The Court cited several precedents and legal commentaries, noting that the nature of the duty and the activity undertaken are crucial. Since the respondent was engaged in imparting higher education and was declared a "Deemed University" under Section 3 of the UGC Act, it was performing a public function. Therefore, the respondent was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. 2. Examination of Public Functions: The Court elaborated on the concept of public functions, referencing various legal texts and cases, including De Smith's Judicial Review and the English case R. vs. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin Plc. It was noted that the courts could consider both the source of power and the nature of the function. The Supreme Court highlighted that the respondent, being a deemed university, was engaged in the public function of imparting education, which is a public duty. This public element in their activities made them subject to writ jurisdiction. 3. Appropriate Forum for Redressal: The respondents argued that even if the writ petition was maintainable, the appellant should approach the District Judge/Additional District Judge as directed in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. However, the Supreme Court observed that since the Single Judge had already entertained and decided the writ petition on merits, it would be unjust to direct the appellant to approach another forum at this stage. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court to decide the appeal on merits. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench, and restored Writ Appeal No. 932 of 2013 to its original number. The Division Bench of the High Court was requested to decide the appeal expeditiously on merits, without being influenced by any observations made by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the appellant's original writ petition, focusing solely on the maintainability issue.
|
