Supreme Court Upholds Meghalaya Govt's Order To Dissolve Private University For Mismanagement

The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 13) upheld the decision taken by the Meghalaya Government in 2014 to dissolve the Chander Mohan Jha (CMJ) University, a private University.The Court also held that the University's decision to self-appoint a Chancellor, without the approval of the Visitor (Governor) was illegal. The State Government ordered the dissolution of the University, by invoking powers under Section 48 of the CMJ University Act for "mismanagement, maladministration, indiscipline, fraudulent intent and failure in the accomplishment of the objectives of the University."The Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta noted that the CMJ University was established under the CMJ University Act, 2009 enacted by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. Pertinently, as per the Act, the Sponsor was required to appoint a person suitable to be the Chancellor of the University 'subject to the approval of the Visitor'. It is an admitted position that the appointment of Chancellor of this University was never approved by the Visitor i.e. the Governor of Meghalaya., the Court said. It observed that the approval of the Visitor was mandatory, in the absence of which the appointment shall become invalid. The Court also pointed out that the expression 'subject to' means 'conditional upon' in law. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that the appointment of Chancellor was conditional upon the approval of the Visitor, the Court added. In the present case, approval for the appointment of the Chancellor was not granted even after several reminders. Against this backdrop, a letter was sent to the State Government stating “In case the approval is not granted by the Visitor by 25th April 2010, it would be deemed that the approval of Chancellor has been granted by the Visitor.” However, the Apex Court refused to accept this as a defence and observed: “It is trite that in the absence of any statutory flavour, a provision cannot be interpreted to create a legal fiction in such eventuality, and creating a fiction through judicial interpretation may amount to legislation, which is exclusively the domain of legislature.” After perusing the Act, the Court observed that there is no such legal fiction created by law. Thus, the contention of deemed approval is not supported by law. Elaborating, the Court said that the Visitor also plays a pivotal role and is not merely a titular head. Thus, the Chancellor's appointment by the Sponsor would attain validity only upon the approval of the Visitor. In view of this, the Court concluded that the procedure was adhered to with respect to the appointment and thus, the High Court was right in declaring the same as invalid. The Court further held that the dissolution of the University was ordered in strict adherence to the procedure under the Act. Adverting to the facts of the case, the Court noted that two show-cause notices were issued. After the appellants submitted their reply, the same was examined and a well-reasoned order was passed. “Before passing the dissolution order dated 31st March, 2014, the State Government analyzed the explanation provided by the appellants, and evaluated the supporting evidence. While recording the final determination, it thoroughly and minutely adverted to the manifest irregularities and discrepancies portrayed in the running and the management of the CMJ University and discarded the same with exhaustive reasons.”It will not be out of context to mention that when the dissolution order was challenged, a single judge bench of the High Court had quashed and set aside the same, while also quashing the show cause notices. However, in the writ appeal, the division bench had set aside this single-judge bench order and remanded the matter. The division bench had observed that the order was examined by the single judge bench only on a procedural framework and not merits. Challenging the remand of the matter, the appellants approached the Apex Court. The Court observed that while the division bench had affirmed the procedure adhered to by the State, it had remanded the matter on merits. It placed its reliance on Nadekerappa since Deceased by LRs. And Ors. v. Pillamma since Deceased by LRs. And Ors. Therein, it was observed that the order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course and an endeavour has to be made by the Appellate Court to dispose of the case on merits. Referring to the decision in Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Ors v. State of Gujarat and Ors, it highlighted that judicial review lies against a decision-making process and not against the decision itself. Building on this, the Court observed: “On the touchstone of the precedents discussed above, once the Division Bench had approved the procedure adopted by the State, in passing the dissolution order, the exercise of remand would be nothing short of an empty formality. Therefore, the order of remand is...

Supreme Court Upholds Meghalaya Govt's Order To Dissolve Private University For Mismanagement

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags