Secretary, Baithul Izza Arts and Science College v. State of Kerala and University of Calicut

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1940** **WP(C).NO.11251 OF 2018 -------------------------** **PETITIONER** **----------** **THE SECRETARY, BAITHUL IZZA ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, P.O.MADAVOOR, NARIKUNI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673585.** **BY ADVS.SRI.R.K.MURALIDHARAN** **RESPONDENTS** **-----------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673636.** **R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-062018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **:2:** ## **WP(C).No. 11251 of 2018 (F) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** ## **---------------------** |**EXHIBIT P1:**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND**| |---|---| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 13/08/2003.**| |**EXHIBIT P2:**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 18/10/2008.**| |**EXHIBIT P3:**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE UO NO.4744/2017/ADMN DATED**| ||**31/03/2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P4:**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE UO NO.759/2018/ADMN DATED**| ||**17/01/2018.**| |**EXHIBIT P5:**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE AFTER CONDUCTING DUE**| ||**ENQUIRY AND INSPECTION EXTRACT OF THE MEETING**| ||**CONVENED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY AND**| ||**THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LIST SHOWING THE NAME**| ||**OF THE PETITIONER COLLEGE.**| |**EXHIBIT P6:**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.07.2017 BY THE**| ||**2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P7:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE**| ||**COURT IN WP(C) NO.27005/2016 DATED 21.12.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P8:**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 14.05.2018.**| |**RESPONDENTS'**|**EXHIBITS : NIL**| |**---------------------**|| ||**//TRUE COPY//**| |**vgd/14.06.18**|**PA TO JUDGE**| ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.** **-----------------------------------** W.P.(C).No.11251 of 2018 **----------------------------------** Dated this the 14[th] day of June, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who is the Secretary of Baithul Izza Arts and Science College, a self financing Arts and Science College, which has already been granted affiliation by the 2[nd] respondent University with respect to B.Sc. Catering Science and Hotel Management and B.Com with Computer Application, vide Ext.P1 order dated 13.08.2003, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent to grant additional affiliation to the courses recommended vide Ext.P5, i.e., B.Com Professional and B.Sc Physics, without insisting for no objection certificate from the Government in this regard. 2. On 02.04.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent University sought time to get instructions. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the University has issued Ext.P8 communication dated 14.05.2018, whereby, the request made by the petitioner for affiliation to start additional courses stands rejected. The last paragraph of Ext.P8 W.P.(C).No.11251 of 2018 2 ## communication reads thus : _“I am, therefore, directed to inform you that your application for new college/additional programme, submitted vide ciruclar(s) cited, cannot be considered. It is also informed that the above decision is subject to the final disposal of the WPC referred above filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on behalf of the college.”_ No reasons whatsoever have been stated in Ext.P8 to reject the request made by the petitioner for grant of additional affiliation. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1[st] respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for Calicut University representing the 2[nd] respondent. ## 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 subsection (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 nonapplication of mind. ## 6. In **Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971** **(1) All. E.R. 1148]** Lord Denning, M.R. Observed that, the giving W.P.(C).No.11251 of 2018 3 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 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 W.P.(C).No.11251 of 2018 4 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 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 W.P.(C).No.11251 of 2018 5 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 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 W.P.(C).No.11251 of 2018 6 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 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 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 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 7 W.P.(C).No.11251 of 2018 petitioner, by setting aside Ext.P8 communication dated 14.05.2018 and directing the 2[nd] respondent University to issue a reasoned order on the request made by the petitioner for additional affiliation to the courses recommended vide Ext.P5, 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** AV/18/6