BHARAT RATNA INDIRA GANDHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Markandey Katju
Gyan Sudha Misra
Judgment Date: 2011-03-28
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed. Impugned High Court order set aside. The process for filling the posts of Principal may continue in accordance with law and should be done expeditiously. No costs.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Bharat Ratna Indira Gandhi College of Engineering & Others

Respondents

State of Maharashtra and Others

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Supreme Court intervened in appeals challenging a High Court order that had directed private unaided degree colleges in Maharashtra to prohibit admissions if they did not appoint a permanent Principal by a specified date. The Court noted at the outset that there was in fact no petition before the High Court on which the order was passed; the High Court acted suo motu on information not disclosed in the impugned order, and none of the colleges concerned were impleaded or heard. The Court held that such suo motu orders are ordinarily not justified or sustainable and that judges must exercise restraint, as there is no statutory rule mandating admission bans in the absence of a permanent Principal. The impugned directions were deemed unwarranted and tantamount to judicial legislation. It relied on Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. v. Chander Hassand Anr. (2008) 1 SCC 683 to underscore the principle that courts should avoid encroaching on governance via judicial edicts, especially where natural justice requires notice and parties’ involvement. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed that the process for filling Principal posts may continue in accordance with law and be expedited, without denying students admissions where permissible by statute.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principles of natural justice
Suo motu orders must be justified and petition-based
Judicial legislation considered impermissible
Judges must exercise restraint

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the High Court acted without a petition, hearing, or notice to the colleges affected, amounting to impermissible suo motu action and judicial legislation. There is no statutory rule prohibiting admissions in the absence of a permanent Principal; acting Principals should suffice for day-to-day governance, and admissions cannot be blanketly blocked on such a basis. The High Court’s directions, especially to prohibit admissions if principals were not appointed by a date, were unwarranted and violated natural justice. The remedy lies in following due process under law, and the appellate process should respect the statutory framework governing appointments and admissions, rather than constitutional edicts from the bench.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (State and others) were concerned with governance and quality assurance in private unaided colleges lacking permanent Principals. They urged that the High Court’s intervention aimed to protect student interests and maintain institutional standards during a period of administrative vacuum. They contended that a uniform directive ensuring continued oversight and timely filling of Principal posts would avert disruption in admissions and preserve statutory processes, and that the High Court’s order should not be treated as a blanket prohibition but as a measured attempt to ensure governance until permanent appointments could be made.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Anr. v. Chander Hassand Anr.	(2008) 1 SCC 683	Positive	The judgment relied on this decision to underscore that courts should refrain from judicial legislation and avoid suo motu actions that lack petition and party participation.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A' [2011] 3 S.C.R. 1087 # BHARAT RATNA INDIRA GANDHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & OTHERS _v._ STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2704 of 2011} MARCH 28, 2011 B [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] - - _Judgment/Order Suo motu orders Orders passed by_ - - _Court on its own motion Sustainability of Held: Such suo_ C _motu orders, without even_ a _petition on which they are passed, are ordinarily not justified nor sustainable_ - _Ordinarily, there must be_ a _petition on which the court can pass an order- On facts, the High Court was not justified in taking suo motu action on the basis of some information which was not disclosed in_ D - _the impugned order Judges must exercise restraint in such_ - _matters By the impugned order, the High Court directed that if the Colleges failed to fill in the post of Principal within the stipulated period, the University would issue orders prohibiting admissions in the concerned Colleges_ .;.. _There is no statutory_ E _rule that in the absence of_ a _permanent Principal, admissions_ - _in the Colleges cannot be made Thus, the High Court indulged in judicial legislation, which is not ordinarily permissible_ - _Also, none of the Colleges were made parties_ - _before the High Court There was violation of the principles_ F - _of natural justice Order of the High set aside._ D _Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Anr. vs. Chander Hassand Anr._ (2008} 1 SCC 683 - relied on. ## Case Law Reference: G (2oot>/ 1 sec 683 ~elied on. Para 12 · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2704 of 2011 ect. 1087 H (2011) 3 S.C.R. ## 1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS A From the Judgment & Order dated 3.12.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 2216 of 2006. ## WITH B C.A. Nos. 2705-2716, 2776, 2717-2725, 2727, 2728, 27312736, 2738-2744 & 2746-2769 cf 2011. Jayant Bhushan, U. Hazarika, S.B, Sanyal, Ravindra K. Adsure, G. Ananda Selvam (for Gaurav Agrawal), Arun R. c Pednekar (for Chandan Ramamurthi), Gopal Balwant Sathe, Sridhar Y. Chitale, Abhijat P. Medh, Kiran Singh, Sarang Aradhye, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Brij Kishor Sah, Prashant B., A1.1it Singh, P.V. Vaidya, Ketki P. Vaidya, Manish Pitale, Wasi Haider (for Chander Shekhar Ashri), Nikhil Nayyar, Ravir,,.hd D Keshavrao Adsure, Sanjay Sen, Rana S. ·Biswas Hemant Singh, Amitab Narendra (for Sharmila Upadhyay), Vikas Mehta, Jitendra Kumar, Dr. R.R. Deshpande, Ujwala R. Deshpande, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sanjay Kharde (for Asha Gopalan Nair), Vijay Kumar (for Vishwajit Singh), Aniruddha P. Mayee, E Charudatta Mahendrakar, Ruche A. Mayee, Satyajit A. Desai, Somanath Padhan (for Anagha S. Desai) for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered F ## **ORDER** Delay condoned. Leave granted. G Heard loamed counsel for the parties. These Appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 03rd December, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.2216 of 2006. H _11_ # BHARAT RATNA INDIRA GANDHI COLLEGE OF 1089 ENGINEERING _v._ STATE OF MAHARASHTRA # .·. At the very outset we may note that in fact there was no A petition before the High Court on which the impugned order was Pi:lssed. The High Court took suo motu action on the basis of · some information which has not been disclosed in the ·impugned order. The cause title in the impugned judgment re~s: B B . . "Cc· •rt on its own motion vs, State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Education Department.· ·. None of the ·colleges in respect of wh.ich the impugned order was passed were made respondents, nor was notice issued to ttiem, nor were they tieard by the High Court. . C · To say the least, .this was a strange procedure adopted by the High Court. · ... In our opinion, such suo motu orders; without even a D petition: on which ttiey are passed, are ordinarily not justified · nor sustainable. Ordinarily, there must be a petition on which the Court can pass an order. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in taking suo motu action in this case. Judges must · E exercise restraint in such matters. Moreover, we have perused the impugned order and we are of the opinion that the directions contained in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment were wholly unwarranted as they amount to judicial legislation. F It appears that many private unaided Degree Colleges in Maharashtra did not have permanent Principals, and this is what motivated the High Court to pass the impugned order. By the impugned order. the High Court has directed that G if the colleges fall to fill in the post of Principal by 31st May, 2009, the University will issue orders in the first week of June, 2009 prohibiting admissions in the Colleges conce~ned. In our opinion, no such direction could have been validly H (2011) 3 S.C.R. ## 1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·A given by the High ;$~. If there is no permanent Principal, obviously the Acting Principal shall officiate as Principal, but; that does noti;mean that in the absence of the permanent Principal, admissions to the college should be prohibited. There is no statutory rule that in the absence of a permanent Principal e admissions in the Colleges cannot be made. Thus, the High Court has indulged in judicial legislation, which is not ordinarily permissible to the Cdurts vide Divisional _Manager, Aravali Golf Club_ & _Another vs. Chander Hass_ & _Another_ (2008) 1 SCC 683. c Ahso, none of these Colleges were made parties before the High Court, and hence the aforesaid direction is violative of the principles of natural justice. Ac:cordingly, we allow these appeals and set aside the D impugned order of the High Court. No costs. However, we direct that the process for filling up the posts of Principal may continue in accordance with law, and should be done expeditiously. E N.J. Appeals allow~d.