Fr. Joy Ullatil v. University of Calicut and Others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 14575 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER** **FR. JOY ULLATIL, MANAGER, DON BOSCO COLLEGE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673 592.** **BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR - 673 635.** **2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 635.** **3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.G. PRAMOD** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sdr/-** **18.06.18** ## **WP(C).No. 14575 of 2018 (V)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR ON 10/11/1999. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINISTRY STATUS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ON 2/9/2008. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ACCREDITATION VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 1/5/2015. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE GOVT. ORDER G.O(MS) NO.88/2005/H.EDN. DATED 8/7/2005. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/3/2017 OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTING CONTINUATION OF PROVISIONAL AFFILIATION. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/4/2017 OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTING CONTINUATION OF PROVISIONAL AFFILIATION. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR GETTING ADDITIONAL AFFILIATION FOR B.SC PSYCHOLOGY. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR GETTING ADDITIONAL AFFILIATION FOR M.SC. PSYCHOLOGY. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 11/7/2017 OF THE UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDED TO THE PRINCIPAL INFORMING THE PRINCIPAL THAT THE APPLICATION FOR M.SC PSYCHOLOGY IS NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE DLPC. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 161918/CDCA3/2017/ADMN. DATED 14/5/2018 OF THE UNIVERSITY RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **PA TO JUDGE** **sdr/18.06.18** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.** **-----------------------------------------------** W.P.(C)No.14575 of 2018 **-----------------------------------------------** Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who is the Manager of Don Bosco Arts & Science College, Sultan Bathery in Wayanad District, which is affiliated to the 1[st] respondent University during the academic year 2005-06 for B.Sc. Computer Science, B.Com with Computer Application and B.A.Travel & Tourism Management, has approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P7 application made by the petitioner for grant of additional affiliation for B.Sc. Psychology course and Ext.P8 application for grant of affiliation for M.Sc.Psychology course and to grant provisional affiliation to those courses, so as to enable the petitioner to start classes during the year 2018-19. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs. 2. A copy of communication dated 14.5.2018 of the 1[st] respondent University addressed to the Principal of the College, W.P.(C)No.14575 of 2018 :-2-: is placed on record as Ext.P11, along with I.A.No.9861 of 2018, whereby the petitioner is informed that Exts.P8 and P9 applications cannot be considered. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the University representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 3[rd] respondent State. 4. By a stereotype communication dated 14.5.2018 of the of the 1[st] respondent University, the Principal of the College is informed that Exts.P8 and P9 applications cannot be considered. 5. In **Santu Thomas v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Vaikom [2018 (1) KHC 437]** , in the context of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court held that, the proceedings issued by the licensing authority on a printed/ cyclostyled proforma with some insertions here or there and by filling the blanks, whereby the petitioner therein is disqualified under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act from holding driving licence for a period of one year, shows a mechanical exercise of power by the licensing authority and as such, the same is vitiated by total non-application of mind. W.P.(C)No.14575 of 2018 :-3-: 6. In **Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971 (1) All. E.R. 1148]** Lord Denning, M.R. Observed that, the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In **Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120]** it was observed that, failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision - taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. 7. In **Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16]** the Apex Court has held that, public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Following the principle laid down in **Gordhandas Bhanji’s case (supra)** , the Apex Court W.P.(C)No.14575 of 2018 :-4-: has reiterated in **Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC 405]** that, when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out. 8. Following the principle laid down in the decisions referred to above, the Apex Court in **Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar [(2003) 4 SCC 364]** held that, reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of ## W.P.(C)No.14575 of 2018 :-5-: the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi - judicial performance. 9. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has laid down in **Krishna Swami v. Union of India [(** 1992) 4 SCC 605] that, undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democracy governed by rule of law, any action, decision or order of any statutory/public authority/functionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the order or staring from the record. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. In **B.A. Linga Reddy v. Karnataka State Transport Authority [(2015) 4 SCC 515]** the Apex Court after referring to its earlier judgments on the subject has reiterated that, the rule ## W.P.(C)No.14575 of 2018 :-6-: of reason is antithesis to arbitrariness in action and is a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. If a statutory or public authority/functionary does not record the reasons, its decision would be rendered arbitrary, unfair, unjust and violating Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of such authority/functionary to give reasons and to pass a speaking order that excludes arbitrariness in action. Referring to the facts of that case, the Apex Court noticed that, there is no consideration of the objections except mentioning the arguments of the rival parties and that objections both factual and legal have not been considered much less reasons assigned to overrule them. 11. The object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The recording of reasons by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions making. It would apply equally to all decisions made by such authority and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. At the ## W.P.(C)No.14575 of 2018 :-7-: same time, it is not the requirement that, the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. What is necessary is that, the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that, some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority. 12. By the judgment dated 7.6.2018 in W.P.(C)No.17415 of 2018, the order issued by the 1[st] respondent University, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner therein for additional affiliation to new courses in the respective colleges, even without stating any reasons, has already been set aside and the 1[st] respondent University has been directed to issue a reasoned order on the application submitted by the petitioner therein, strictly in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner without delay. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner, by directing the 1[st] respondent University to issue a W.P.(C)No.14575 of 2018 :-8-: reasoned order on Exts.P8 and P9 applications made by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** ami/13.6.18 //True copy// P.A.to Judge