9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time to time. By the order dated 19/12-12-1987 recognition was continued for the academic years 1986-87 and 1987-88. The College even received the grants from the Government for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 as can be seen from Annexure-B. The second respondent-University had not granted affiliation to any Homeopathic College prior to 1989-90 as there was no separate faculty and syllabus in the University for Homeopathy Courses. It started granting of affiliation to Homeopathic Colleges from the academic year 1989-90. The petitioners made an application for grant of affiliation for the year 1989-90 to conduct degree course in the Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (B.H.M.S). Based on the recommendation of the Local Inquiry Committee appointed by the University, the State Government by its order dated 23-6-1989 directed the University to give affiliation as required under Section 53 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). The University gave affiliation on certain conditions as is clear from letter dated 27-7-1989 - Annexure-D. The petitioners further contend that the College strictly adhered to the conditions imposed and the standards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter dated 15-4-1991, issued by the second respondent (Annexure-E). 2. The second respondent-University has filed the statement of objections contending that by a communication dated 27-9-1989 (Annexure-D) the second petitioner was asked to send a compliance report in respect of the conditions imposed for grant of affiliation so that the University could issue a Notification granting affiliation. The College did not send compliance report and as such the University did not issue a Notification for affiliation in respect of the College. An application dated 30-10-1989 was made to the University for continuation of affiliation for the year 1990-91. The Local Inquiry Committee visited the College on 17-11-1989 and made a report recommending continuation of affiliation subject to certain conditions. The College sent a compliance report on 21-5-1990. Several of the conditions had not been complied with. An application dated 4-10-1990 was made to the University for continuation of affiliation for the year 1991-92. The Local Inquiry Committee having visited the College on 9-1-1991 made a report with a recommendation that continuation of affiliation to the said College need not be consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demic year 1989-90. (2) The College has necessary infrastructure and facilities. The deficiencies pointed out were also made up. If there is anything which remains to be fulfilled all efforts will be made by the College within the reasonable time. The petitioners have already made efforts and got 1 acre and 34 guntas of land allotted to put up the construction. The petitioner has appointed sufficient number of Teachers and even has made provision for development fund. Under the circumstances the second respondent was not justified in issuing the letter dated 15-4-1991 - Annexure-E refusing affiliation and asking the College not to make admissions. (3) The second respondent has committed an error in refusing affiliation without placing the papers before the State Government and even before the State Government could consider the case of the petitioners for affiliation, issuing of letter dated 15-4-1991 -Annexure-E without placing the papers before the State Government is in clear violation of the Scheme and the provisions contained in Section 53 of the Act. As such, the impugned letter dated 15-4-1991 Annexure-E cannot be sustained. 5. In opposition, Sri N.B. Bhat, learned Counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the University to refuse affiliation by itself without submitting the application and all proceedings, if any, of the Academic Council and of the Syndicate relating thereto to the State Government under Section 53(5) of the Act. I find difficulty in agreeing with Sri N.B. Bhat, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, to place construction on the proviso to Sub-section (9) of Section 53 of the Act to the effect that the power of continuation of affiliation given to the Syndicate in consultation with the Academic Council includes the power to refuse affiliation, for various reasons set out below: (1) This Court in the case of INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, ILR1985KAR1202 has stated thus in para-17 of the said Decision: Having regard to the requirements of Clauses (a) to (i) of Section 53, it appears to me that the construction placed on Section 53 by the Counsel for the Karnataka University is sound. The Section covers not only the cases of colleges proposed to be established in respect of which affiliation is sought for the first time, but also colleges in respect of which affiliation had already been granted for a period, but are seeking affiliation for a fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfined to the cases of continuation of affiliation for existing courses of study and extension of affiliation for follow-on courses. Section 53(5) deals with grant or refusal of application for affiliation. The proviso to Sub-section (9) of Section 53 takes in its fold only the cases of continuation of affiliation for existing courses of study and extension of affiliation for follow-on courses. If the legislature had intended to confer the power on the Syndicate to refuse affiliation under the said proviso it would have been expressly stated so as is being done in Section 53(5) in respect of both grant or refusal of affiliation. Further continuation of affiliation in respect of the cases provided under the said proviso does not affect the rights of the Colleges, but the refusal does and it certainly results in civil consequences. It appears, in cases of continuation of affiliation under the proviso it was thought unnecessary to submit the application and the proceedings of the Academic Council and the Syndicate to the State Government. It is not uncommon that in various enactments, particularly in cases of grant of licences, provisions are made stating that licences could be grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to specify a day for holding of such hat or fair. The Supreme Court found that the view of the High Court in this regard was erroneous observing that under the Act the power of general administration of the local area vested in the Panchayat Samiti only to grant a licence to hold a hat or fair under Section 117 of the Act, but such power of general administration necessarily carried with it the power to supervise, control and manage such hat or fair within its territorial jurisdiction. Under the circumstances it was held that the power to grant a licence included the power to make incidental or consequential orders for specification of a day on which such hat or fair shall be held. In the case on hand refusal to grant affiliation cannot be said to be either incidental or consequential. Hence, the Decision cited has n6 application to the facts of the case. The Decision in V.T. KHANZODE AND ORS. v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. 1987(2) SCC 7 cited by the learned Counsel Sri Bhat again does not help him as it dealt with the incidental powers namely to provide for service conditions of the staff to carry out the purposes for which the Bank was constituted. It is held that the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e used in a statute is not in itself a conclusive reason why every case falling literally within them should be governed by that statute, and the context of any Act may well indicate that wide or general words should be given a restrictive meaning (See Halsbury, 4th Edition, Vol.44 para 874). I respectfully agree with the principles stated. Applying the same I hold that this Decision also does not advance the case of respondent No. 2 any further. 9. Sri H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, cited the Decision in the case of RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. AIR 1987 SC 1023 in support of his submission as to the interpretation of Section 53(1) and (5) and proviso to Section 53(9) of the Act. He specifically drew my attention to paragraph 33 of the said Decision, which reads thus: Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A Statute is best interpreted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a proviso cannot be extended to deal with cases other than dealt with by it. It cannot exclude something by implication which is expressed by clear words in the enactment. When on a fair construction the principal provision is clear a proviso cannot expand or limit it. Hence, I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners in this regard. 11. In view of what is stated above, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned letter dated 15-4-1991 (Annexure-E) cannot be sustained. The respondent No. 2 was obliged to submit under Section 53(5) of the Act the application made by the petitioners seeking affiliation and all proceedings of the Academic Council and the Syndicate relating thereto to the State Government. In that event the State Government ought to have held such inquiry as deemed necessary and make recommendations for the grant or refusal of the application for affiliation to the University. In my opinion, impugned letter dated 15-4-1991 (Annexure-E) issued is in violation of Section 53(5) of the Act. 12. In the result and for the reasons stated above I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) Writ Petition is allowed. (2) The impugned letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
