Rev. Fr. Dr. Mathew Vazhayil v. University of Calicut, State of Kerala and University Grants Commission (UGC)

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 17414 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER :** **REV. FR. DR. MATHEW VAZHAYIL DIRECTOR, YUVAKSHETRA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, EZHAKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT:** **1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR-673001.** **2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.** **3. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC), NEW DELHI. PIN-110002, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** **R1 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE R3 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **EL** **WP(C).No. 17414 of 2018 (B)** **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MINORITY STATUS CERTIFICATE DATED 4/9/2013** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.U.O.NO.4232/2017/ADMN. DATED 25/3/2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR AFFILIATION OF 4 COURSES NAMELY B.COM.(TAXATION), BACHELOR OF HOTEL ADMINISTRATION (BHA), B.SC.PHYSICS AND B.SC. CHEMISTRY FIELD ON 28/10/2016 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 177171/CDC-A3/2016/ADMN. DATED 11/7/2017 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION ALONG WITH DRAFT AGREEMENT AND AN AFFIDAVIT REQUESTING THE GOVERNMENT TO ISSUE GOVERNMENT CONCURRENCE FOR STARTING THE TWO COURSES IE. B.COM. TAXATION AND B.SC.PHYSICS ON 18/3/2018. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ANOTHER REQUEST ON 9/4/2018 FILED BY PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAL REQUEST TO THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION ON 27/4/2018 ALONG WITH THE FEE FOR NOC. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER G.O.(MS) NO. 178/2016/H.EDN. DATED 22/8/2016 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/7/2017 IN W.A.NO.1020/2017 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 17/5/2018 OF THE UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 13/2/2012 OF THE U.G.C.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **EL 18.6.2018** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.17414 of 2018 -----------------------------------------------** Dated this the 13[th] day of June, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who is the Director of Yuvakshetra Institute of Management Studies, Ezhakad, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent University to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P3 application dated 28.10.2016 for affiliation of four courses, namely, B.Com (Taxation), Bachelor of Hotel Administration, B.Sc. Physics and B.Sc. Chemistry and include the courses mentioned in Ext.P8 communication dated 2.5.2018, in the online registration platform for Centralised Allotment Process (CAP), in the light of Ext.P12 UGC notification. The petitioner has sought for other consequential reliefs, including a declaration that views of the Government are not required for granting affiliation of courses with the 1[st] respondent University, by virtue of Ext.P12 notification of the UGC as the provisions of UGC First Amendment Regulations, 2012 will prevail over the provisions of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977 W.P.(C)No.17414 of 2018 :-2-: in the matter of affiliation of colleges and courses with the University. 2. Today, when this writ petition is taken up for consideration along with W.P.(C)Nos.8892 of 2018 and 10806 of 2018, a copy of communication dated 14.5.2018 of the 1[st] respondent University addressed to the Principal of the College, is made available for the perusal of this Court, whereby the petitioner is informed that Ext.P3 application cannot be considered. Similar communications dated 14.5.2018 have been issued in the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.8892 of 2018 and 10806 of 2018 as well. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent University, the learned Senior Government Pleader for 2[nd] respondent State and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent U.G.C. 4. By a stereotype communication dated 14.5.2018 of the of the 4[th] respondent University, the Principal of the College is informed that Ext.P3 application cannot be considered. W.P.(C)No.17414 of 2018 :-3-: 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. 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. W.P.(C)No.17414 of 2018 :-4-: 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 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 W.P.(C)No.17414 of 2018 :-5-: 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 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, W.P.(C)No.17414 of 2018 :-6-: 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 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 W.P.(C)No.17414 of 2018 :-7-: 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 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 W.P.(C)No.17414 of 2018 :-8-: 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 reasoned order on Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner, W.P.(C)No.17414 of 2018 :-9-: 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. The 2[nd] respondent State shall also communicate the decision taken on the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 for permission to start additional courses, 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