2014 (2) TMI 1417 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - power of Addl. Secretary to Government - it is contended that the impugned corrigendum was issued by Addl. Secretary to Government who has no authority to change the decision of the High Power Committee - HELD THAT - After receiving application to accord permission the Prescribed Authority as stipulated in Sub-section 5 of Orissa Education Act may make such enquiry and make a report with recommendation which has been given in the present case as reveals from the counter affidavit - Sub-section 6 of the Act stipulates that if the Committee is satisfied that the educational need of local area justify the establishment of an educational institution that the place where the educational institution is proposed to be established is likely to best serve the educational needs of the area the permission may be granted. The statute does not provide the Committee to make further enquiry or to collect any further data regarding educational needs of the locality except the report furnished by the Prescribed Authority as stipulated in Sub-section 5. In case the Committee takes a different view then it must specify the reason for taking a different view instead of expressing only allowed or rejected. The corrigendum issued by one of the member i.e. Addl. Secretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education on 1.6.2013. Accordingly, Rule-5 of the Act has been violated. As per statute no other authority has jurisdiction to change the decision of the High Power Committee. There is no other document also before the High Power Committee that there was no local need to open such institution rather the inspection report states that the institution situated in a rural area and poor local people will be benefited immensely in case the permission is granted to open the institution. The poor villagers are not able to provide financial help to their children to prosecute science studies in a costly town like Bhubaneswar. Considering all those aspects, the High Power Committee has accorded permission to the petitioner's institution which has been subsequently withdrawn by way of issuing the corrigendum by the Additional Secretary to Government who has no jurisdiction to issue such corrigendum. Statute does not confer jurisdiction on the Additional Secretary to issue such a corrigendum by modifying and altering the decision taken by the High Power Committee. The impugned order dated 1.6.2013 so far as petitioner's institution is concerned issued by Addl. Secretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition is quashed - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order not allowing the opening of a college despite High Power Committee's recommendation.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 1.6.2013, which prevented their institution from opening a +2 Science College despite the High Power Committee's recommendation in a meeting on 22.5.2013. The petitioner's institution, Gandhi +2 Science College, Koradakanta, applied for permission under the Orissa Education Act and Management Rules. The High Power Committee considered 203 proposals on 22.5.2013, allowing 52 applications, rejecting 133, and deferring 19. The petitioner's institution was listed as allowed in the meeting's decision communicated on 27.5.2013. However, a corrigendum issued on 1.6.2013 by the Additional Secretary to Government altered this decision, leading to the writ petition.

The petitioner argued that the High Power Committee, as the competent authority, had already granted permission on 22.5.2013, and no subsequent decision was taken to alter this. The impugned notification was challenged as unauthorized. The respondents contended that a similar-named college also applied for permission, leading to confusion. The inspection reports highlighted the petitioner's institution's suitability for the college, emphasizing the rural area's educational needs.

The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Orissa Education Act, emphasizing the Prescribed Authority's role in scrutinizing applications and making recommendations to the Committee. The Act stipulates that if the Committee is satisfied with the local educational needs, permission may be granted based on the Prescribed Authority's report. The Committee's decision is final unless specific reasons for a different view are provided.

The High Power Committee, comprising various officials, had taken a decision after scrutiny, issuing the list of colleges allowed on 22.5.2013. The subsequent corrigendum by the Additional Secretary violated the Act, as no authority other than the Committee can alter its decisions. The court noted the rural area's educational needs and the benefits to local students, emphasizing the Committee's rightful decision to grant permission. The corrigendum was quashed, directing the respondents to list the petitioner's institution on their website for admissions as per the Committee's decision. The writ petition was allowed, upholding the Committee's initial decision.