MOOGAMBIGAI CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST V. UNION OF INDIA

WA/549/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Moogambigai Charitable and Educational Trust and others (appellants) challenging the decision of the Karnataka High Court which dismissed their writ petitions against the State of Karnataka and others. The appellants sought to quash the communication and decision that affected the affiliation and inclusion of Raja Rajeswari Medical College and Hospital under Dr. MGR Educational and Research Institute. The High Court's decision was based on the finding that the Central Government and UGC did not properly consider the State Government's views and other procedural requirements before issuing the Notification dated 14.02.2019. The court directed a re-evaluation of the inclusion following the correct procedures.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679088 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH VS. PEARL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND FOUNDRY WORKS PVT., COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI VS. ANJUM M GHASWALA, THE GOA FOUNDATION VS. SESA STERLITE LTD. AND ORS.
• Laws Referred To: Karnataka High Court Act, Indian Trust Act, University Grants Commissions Act, Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, Indian Medical Council Act
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R SUBRAMANYA; MADHAVI
• Assessee Lawyers: A S PONANNA; P S RAMAN
• Keywords: Affiliation; Certiorari; Certiorari; Deemed University; Medical college; Regulations; Writ Appeal; Disaffiliation; Expert Committee
• Section: 5; 4; 11(2); 13.09

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE W.A. No.549 OF 2020 (EDN-RES) C/W W.A. No.550 OF 2020 (EDN-RES) IN W.A. No.549 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. MOOGAMBIGAI CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST ® REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DR. S. VIJAYANAND S/O G. SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 2. RAJA RAJESWARI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN DR. B. SATHYAMURTHY S/O SRI K.V. BURLY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. BOTH R/AT NO.202, KAMBIPURA MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560074. 3. DR. MGR EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR DR. C.B. PALANIVELU S/O LATE SRI C.K. BALAKRISHNAN 2 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS DR. MGR EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) UNIVERSITY CAMPUS PERIYAR EVR HIGHWAY MADURAVOYAL, CHENNAI-600095. ... APPELLANTS (BY MR. A.S. PONANNA, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADV.,) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION ICR DIVISION, SHASHTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110001. 2. JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION ICR DIVISION, NEW DELHI-110001. 3. MEMBER SECRETARY ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION NELSON MANDELA MARG VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070. 4. SECRETARY, MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET 14, SECTOR-8 DWARAKA PLACE NEW DELHI-110075. 5. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) BY ITS SECRETARY BAHADHUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI-110002. 6. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE 3 MEDICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 6TH FLOOR, GATE NO.4 M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 7. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560009. 8. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES KARNATAKA BY ITS REGISTRAR 4TH T BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041. ... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADDL. AG A/W MR. G.V. SHASHI KUMAR, AGA FOR C/R6 & R7 MRS. MADHAVI R, CGC FOR R1 & R2 (ABSENT) MR. SHOWRI H.R. ADV., FOR R3 MR. N. KHETTY, ADV., FOR R4 MR. C. SHASHIKANTHA, ADV., FOR R5 MR. N.K. RAMESH, ADV., FOR R8) - - - THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN WP NO.9236/2020, DATED 03/11/2020. IN W.A. No.550 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. MOOGAMBIGAI CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST @ REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECSTOR DR. S. VIJAYANANDA S/O G. SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 2. RAJARAJESWARI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL BENGALURU 4 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN DR. B. SATHYAMURTHY S/O SRI. K.V. BURLY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS BOTH AT NO 202, KAMBIPURA MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU 560074. 3. DR. MGR EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR DR. C B PALANIVELU S/O LATE SRI. C.K. BALAKRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. DR. MGR EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) UNIVERSITY CAMPUS PERIYAR EVR HIGH WAY MADURAVOYAL, CHENNAI 600095. ... APPELLANTS (BY MR. P.S. RAMAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADV.,) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION ICR DIVISION, SHASHTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI 110001. 2. JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION ICR DIVISION, NEW DELHI 110001. 3. MEMBER SECRETARY ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ NEW DELHI 110070. 5 4. SECRETARY, MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET 14, SECTOR 8 DWARAKA PLACE, NEW DELHI 110075. 5. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. 6. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE MEDICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 6TH FLOOR, GATE NO 4, M S BUILDING BENGALURU 560001. 7. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560009. 8. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES KARNATAKA, BY ITS RESGISTRAR 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560041. 9. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BY ITS SECRETARY BAHADUR SHAH ZAGAR MARG, NEW DELHI 110002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADDL. AG A/W MR. G.V. SHASHIKUMAR, AGA FOR R5 TO R7 MRS. MADHAVI R, CGC FOR R1 & R2 (ABSENT) MR. N. KHETTY, ADV., FOR R4 MR. C. SHASHIKANTHA, ADV., FOR R5 MR. N.K. RAMESH, ADV., FOR R8 MR. SHOWRI H.R. ADV., FOR R3) - - - THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL 6 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN WP NO.7482/2020 DATED 03/11/2020. THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.11.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Both these intra court appeals arise from a common judgment dated 03.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7482/2020 and W.P.No.9236/2020. The appellants had preferred writ petition viz., W.P.No.7482/2020 in which inter alia a writ of certiorari was sought quashing the communication dated 16.05.2019 issued by State of Karnataka and the decision dated 29.06.2019 issued by Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'the RGUHS' for short). The appellants had also questioned the vires of Section 5 of Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The State of Karnataka in W.P.No.9236/2020 had sought a writ of certiorari seeking quashment of Notification dated 14.02.2019 issued by Government of India. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra. 7 2. The appellant No.1 is a Educational and Charitable Trust registered under the provisions of Indian Trust Act, 1882. The appellant No.2 is a medical college and hospital established by appellant No.1. The appellant No.3 is a deemed university under the University Grants Commissions Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The Medical College and Hospital established by appellant No.1 is affiliated to Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS). The appellant No.3 submitted an application to the Central Government for inclusion of the appellant No.2 viz., the Medical College and Hospital to be its constituent under the provisions of the Act and the UGC Regulations, 2016. The Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act issued a Notification dated 14.02.2019 by which inclusion of appellant No.2 under the ambit of appellant No.3 - University was approved. 3. Thereafter, State Government by a communication dated 16.05.2019 asked RGUHS not to cancel the affiliation issued in favour of appellant No.2. Thereupon the RGUHS issued a communication dated 05.08.2019 to 8 appellant No.2 by which it was informed that it cannot be disaffiliated from RGUHS and the appellant No.2 continues to be affiliated to RGUHS. 4. Thereafter, the appellants sent a communication to RGUHS on 16.08.2019 by which it was informed that Notification has already been issued by Government of India on 14.02.2019 approving the inclusion of appellant No.2 under the ambit of appellant No.3. The Medical Council of India vide communication dated 14.09.2019 informed the appellant No.2 to apply to the Central Government for recognition under Section 11(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Thereafter, RGUHS addressed a communication dated 17.09.2019 to the Government of Karnataka seeking suitable directions with regard to disaffiliation of appellant No.2. Thereafter, another letter dated 29.02.2020 was issued by State of Karnataka to RGUHS wherein it was stated that the appellant No.2 had admitted students to appellant No.3 without disaffiliation from RGUHS, which was followed by a similar communication dated 29.02.2020. 9 5. RGUHS addressed another communication on 07.03.2020 to the Principal of appellant No.2 asking it to refrain from making admission to post graduate and under graduate seats for the year 2021 as the disaffiliation from RGUHS is yet to take place. The appellants thereupon filed W.P.No.7482/2020 in which a writ of certiorari was sought seeking quashment of communication dated 16.05.2019 issued by State of Karnataka as well as decision of academic council of RGUHS dated 29.06.2019. The appellants also challenged the validity of Section 5 of the Act. The State of Karnataka filed W.P.No.9236/2020 in which a writ of certiorari was sought seeking the quashment of Notification dated 14.02.2019. 6. The learned Single Judge by common order dated 03.11.2020 dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant. Learned Single Judge quashed the Notification dated 14.02.2019 issued by the Central Government by which appellant No.2 was included within the ambit of appellant No.3-University and issued a writ of mandamus to the Central Government as well as to the Medical Council of 10 India to take all steps required for restoration of position of the parties subject to the rider that such steps for restoration shall not effect the admission of students to under graduate and post graduate courses. Accordingly, the writ petition preferred by the Government of Karnataka was allowed. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed by the appellants. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants at the outset submitted that the appellants in these appeals have not assailed the findings recorded by learned Single Judge on the issue of maintainability of writ petitions. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that Notification dated 14.02.2019 has been issued in accordance with UGC (Institutions Deemed To Be Universities) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for short) and the finding that the provisions of the Regulations have not been complied with cannot be sustained. It is also urged that in any case, since, the learned Single Judge recorded the finding that views of the State Government were not considered by the UGC and 11 the Central Government before issuing the impugned Notification dated 14.02.2019. Therefore, the matter ought to have remitted to the Central Government for a fresh decision and the learned Single Judge ought not to have dealt with the issue on merits. It is further submitted that the issue with regard to validity of Section 5 of the Act ought to have dealt with on merits. 8. It is also urged that representative of the MCI was member of the Expert Committee which made a recommendation on 05.10.2018 that appellant No.2 can be permitted to migrate to appellant No.3. It is further submitted that taking into account the conduct of the State Government, it was not a fit case where the indulgence should have been shown at the instance of the State Government. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that views of the State Government has to be taken into account before issuance of Notification dated 14.02.2019. It is also submitted that the conditions mentioned in the regulations with regard to 12 transfer of property has not been complied with. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellants. 10. Learned counsel for MCI submitted that the conditions prescribed in the Notification dated 14.02.2019 for migration have not been complied with and the migration of appellant No.2 is permissible to appellant No.3 only if the conditions in the Notification dated 14.02.2019 are complied with. It is also argued that appellant No.2 is not the owner of land and the same had been granted to it on lease for a period of 30 years. 11. Learned counsel for UGC submitted that recommendations made by the UGC are not under challenge and the Central Government has to take appropriate decision. Learned counsel for RGUHS has submitted that the application for migration has to be considered on the touchstone of criteria prescribed under Regulation 13 of the Regulations. However, none has appeared on behalf of the Central Government. 13 12. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Regulation 13 of the Regulations deals with the procedure for inclusion of other institutions under the ambit of institution deemed to be university. The relevant extract of Regulation reads as under: 13.09 The inspection report as well as the recommendation of the Expert Committee along with the opinion / comments of the statutory /regulatory body concerned and the views, if any, of the State Government concerned shall be examined by the Commission as per procedure before making recommendation to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. 13. Thus from perusal of the aforesaid Regulation, it is evident that inspection report as well as recommendation of the expert committee along with opinion / comments of the statutory /regulatory body concerned and the view, if any, of the State Government shall be examined by the commission as per procedure before making recommendation to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, 14 Government of India. It is trite law that if the statute provides a procedure for doing a particular thing in a particular manner, that thing has to be done in the manner prescribed. [See: 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH VS. PEARL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND FOUNDRY WORKS PVT.', (2004) 4 SCC 597 AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI VS. ANJUM M GHASWALA', AIR 2001 SC 3868 and THE GOA FOUNDATION VS. SESA STERLITE LTD. AND ORS. (2018) 4 SCC 218] 14. In the instant case, the UGC in 536th meeting held on 14.11.2018 unanimously accepted the report of the expert committee constituted to assist the proposal submitted by appellant No.3 for inclusion of appellant No.2 under its ambit. Thereafter UGC by letter dated 15.11.2018 solicited the comments of the State Government in respect of appellant No.2 for bringing it under the ambit of appellant No.3. The State Government by a reply dated 14.01.2019 stated its disagreement about the proposal for inclusion. However, the UGC did not take into account the views of the 15 State Government and approved the recommendation of the expert committee on 14.11.2018. Thereafter, the UGC solicited the views of the State Government on 15.11.2018. Therefore, the action of the Central Government in issuing the Notification dated 14.02.2019 suffers from procedural infirmity inasmuch as it is violative of the mandate contained in Regulation 13.09 of the Regulations. Learned Single Judge has recorded a finding in this regard and has held that views of the State Government were not taken into consideration by the UGC and Central Government. 15. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge after having recorded the aforesaid finding, ought not to have dealt with the other issues namely whether Moogambigai Trust and MGR Trusts are administered by separate managements, whether lease of Rajarajeshwari Medical College by Moogambigai trust to MGR Trust is in accordance with law as well as the issue with regard to validity of Section 5 of the Act. Needless to state that Central Government is the competent authority to deal with the issue with regard to the inclusion of other institutions under the 16 ambit of the institutions deemed to be universities. Therefore, the aforesaid issues have to be adverted by the Central Government in Regulation 13 of the Regulations. 16. In view of preceding analysis, we affirm the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that notification dated 14.02.2019 has been issued in violation of Regulation 13.09 of the Regulations. Therefore, the notification dated 14.02.2019 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The finding on the issue of maintainability of the jurisdiction is affirmed. In the fact situation of the case, it is not necessary for us to deal with the issue with regard to the validity of the Section 5(1) of the Act which is kept open to be agitated in appropriate case. The findings on the remaining issues namely - whether Moogambigai Trust and MGR Trusts are administered by separate managements and whether lease of Rajarajeshwari Medical College by Moogambigai trust to MGR Trust is in accordance with law are set aside. In the result, the matter is remitted to the UGC as well as the Central Government with a direction to comply with the mandate contained in Regulation 13.09 of the 17 Regulations and to take a decision with regard to the inclusion of the Appellant No.2 under the ambit of the Appellant No.3 by a speaking order after taking into account the views of the State Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SS "