ST. MARY'S COLLEGE AFFILIATED TO UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT v. STATE OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT & DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

## **PETITIONER(S)** **ST. MARY'S COLLEGE AFFILIATED TO UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, P.O.PUTHANANGADI, ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 321, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SAJI MUTHIRENTHICKAL.** **BY ADVS.SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS SMT.P.M.SHAHIDA** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR - 673 636.** **3. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **R1,R3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. G. RENJITHA. R BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 3977 of 2018 (V)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GRADUATE COURSES APPLICATION DATED 31.12.2016 WITH ITS RECEIPT BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE POST GRADUATE COURSES APPLICATION DATED 31.12.2016 WITH ITS RECEIPT BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 11.07.2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.09.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATE 11.12.2017. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2017 IN W.P.(C)NO. 11124/17. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2017 IN W.P.(C)NO. 16625/2017. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** ## **EB** ## **///TRUE COPY///** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C.) No.3977 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of June, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner which is a Self Financing Arts and Science College affiliated to the second respondent University has filed this writ petition, which is presently conducting ten Under Graduate courses namely B.Com Computer Application, BBA, B.A. English, B.A. Economics, BSc. Mathematics, BSc Physics, BCA, B.Com Finance, B.Com Co-operation, B.A. History and BSc Psychology and two Post Graduate courses namely M.A. English and M.Com Finance, has approached this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent State to issue a no objection certificate for concurrence for getting University affiliation to M.A. W.P.(C.) No. 3977 of 2018 2 Economics, MSc. Physics, B.Com professional, B.A. Mass Communication and BSW, so as to enable the petitioner to start the courses during the present academic year. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs. 2. During the pendency of this writ petition, the second respondent University has issued Ext.P7 communication dated 16.05.2018 whereby the request made by the petitioner for grant of additional affiliation stands rejected. Ext.P7 communication reads thus: “With reference to the above, I am to inform you that your request for additional affiliation to BSW, BA Mass Communication & Journalism, MA Economics and MSc Physics programmes has been examined and decided not to grant affiliation to new programmes.” 3. A reading of Ext.P7 communication issued by the second respondent university would show that it is a non speaking order and that, no reasons whatsoever has been stated in the said communication to reject the request made by the petitioner for grant of additional affiliation. 4. In **Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971 (1) All. E.R. 1148]** Lord Denning, M.R. Observed W.P.(C.) No. 3977 of 2018 3 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 decisiontaker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. 5. 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 W.P.(C.) No. 3977 of 2018 4 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. 6. 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. W.P.(C.) No. 3977 of 2018 5 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. 7. 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. W.P.(C.) No. 3977 of 2018 6 8. 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 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. 9. 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 W.P.(C.) No. 3977 of 2018 7 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 of law that, some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by an administrative or quasi judicial authority. In the result, Ext.P7 communication dated 16.05.2018 of the 2[nd] respondent University is set aside and the said respondent is directed to issue a reasoned order on the application made by the petitioner for additional affiliation, strictly in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period W.P.(C.) No. 3977 of 2018 8 of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** EB