K.R. Jayaram v. University of Calicut and The State of Kerala

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 17415 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER(S)** **K.R.JAYARAM, S/O. C.K.RAGHAVAN, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING TRUSTEE, C.K. RAGHAVAN MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, KALANADIKOLLY P.O., PULPALLY, WAYANAD - 673 579.** **BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR - 673 001.** **2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, S.C R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **14.06.2018** **Msd.** **WP(C).No. 17415 of 2018 (B)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL AFFILIATION ORDER DATED 27.07.2015 OF THE UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL AFFILIATION FOR B.SC PHYSICS, B.SC. CHEMISTRY, B.SC. BOTANY AND B.SC. ZOOLOGY IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY ALONG WITH REQUIRED FEE, FILED ON 30.12.2016. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RECOMMENDATION FORWARDED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY THE UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.7.2017 IN W.A.NO.1020/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.1.2018 IN W.P.(C)NO.41347/2017. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 14.2.2018. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.153102/CDC-A3/2013/ADMN.(V) DATED 16.5 2018 EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION SCHEDULE 2018 PUBLISHED ON 17.5.2018.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msd.** **14.06.2018** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.17415 of 2018 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is the Chairman and Managing Trustee of C.K. Raghavan Memorial Educational and Charitable Trust, Pulpally, which has established an arts and science college viz., Jayasree Arts and Science College, Kalanadikolly, which is provisionally affiliated to the 1[st] respondent University during the academic year 2014-16 for B.A. English, B.A. Sociology, B.Com Computer Application, B.Com with Co-operation, has approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 communication dated 16.05.2018 and to reconsider Ext.P2 application for additional affiliation for B.Sc. Physics, B.Sc. Chemistry, B.Sc. Botany and B.Sc. Zoology and grant provisional affiliation to the courses applied for during the academic year 2018-19, so as to enable the petitioner to start classes during the current academic year. The petitioner has W.P.(C) No.17415 of 2018 :2: also sought for other consequential reliefs. 2. Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for additional affiliation for B.Sc. Physics and B.Sc. Chemistry stands rejected vide Ext.P7 communication dated 16.05.2018 of the 1[st] respondent. Ext.P7 reads thus: “With reference to the above, I am to inform you **t** hat your request for additional affiliation to B.Sc. Physics and B.Sc. Chemistry programmes has been examined and decided not to grant affiliation to new programmes.” 3. Ext.P7 communication is one issued by the 1[st] respondent University pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment of this Court dated 10.01.2018 in W.P.(C) No.41347 of 2017, whereby the University was directed to take up, consider and pass orders on the request made by the petitioner for additional affiliation within the time limit specified in that judgment and to communicate the decision to the petitioner without delay. 4. On 30.05.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent University and also the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions and accordingly, the matter was posted to 04.06.2018 for further consideration. W.P.(C) No.17415 of 2018 :3: On 04.06.2018, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent University sought adjournment and accordingly, it is listed today for further consideration. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent University and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 2[nd] respondent State. 6. A perusal of Ext.P7 communication dated 16.05.2018 would show that no reason whatsoever has been stated for rejecting Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for additional affiliation. 7. 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. W.P.(C) No.17415 of 2018 :4: 8. 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 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 ## W.P.(C) No.17415 of 2018 :5: later brought out. 9. 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 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. 10. 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 W.P.(C) No.17415 of 2018 :6: 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. 11. 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 of reason is anti - thesis 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 W.P.(C) No.17415 of 2018 :7: 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. 12. 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 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 W.P.(C) No.17415 of 2018 :8: of law that, some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by an administrative or quasijudicial authority. In the result, Ext.P7 communication dated 16.05.2018 of the 1[st] respondent University is set aside and the said respondent is directed to issue a reasoned order on Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** bpr //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE