BAPUJI GRAMEENA VIKAS SAMITHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Art. 226 of Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to cancel affiliation granted to the petitioners's Arts. and Commerce College, Sadashivagad as per Annexure-s- 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D' and further prayed for quashing of Annexure- 'G' as unlawful and without jurisdiction.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner's society has started a Pre-University College at Karwar by the name Sri. Durgadvi Pre-University College. Subsequently, the petitioner's society thought to open First Grade College for providing higher educational facilities in Arts and Commerce and applied for affiliation with Karnataka University under Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. The 2nd respondent forwarded the application to the Government for its recommendations for grant of affiliation. According to the petitioner's case, the Government by its order dated 4-11-1986 accorded approval to the opening of a rural Arts and Commerce College. The affiliation was granted as late as 4-11-1986. So as per allegations in W.P. the petitioner's case is that College could not be started for the academic year 1986-87 inspite of the fact that the petitioner's society had all the infrastructural facilities to open the college. That on 25-11-1986, the 2nd respondent University communicated to the petitioner telegraphically that in view of the Government order dated 4-11-1986 affiliating Arts and Commerce College at Sadashivagad, there is no need to apply for fresh affiliation for the ensuing year 1987-88. Petitioner's case is that this telegraphic message Annexure- 'C' was followed by a letter dated 11-12-1986. Petitioner's case is that in pursuance of the affiliation granted to it, it had opened Arts and Commerce college and started the courses in B.A. Part I and B. Com. Part-I for the academic year 1987-88. The college was also ingurated by the Union State Minister for Youth, Sports and Women and Child Welfare. Petitioner's further case is that petitioner had already admitted 60 students in 1987-88 for both B.A. and B.Com. Part I classes. To the petitioner's surprise, petitioner received a communication from the 2nd respondent that petitioner should not start the college. That communication was dated 4-7-1987, copy of which is annexed by the petitioner in Annexure- 'G' to the writ petition. Petitioner has challenged that order Annexure- 'G' to the writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner's case has been that the said order dated 4-7-1987 Annexure- 'G' is illegal and void. Petitioner's case is that the direction not to start the classes contained in Annexure- 'G' had been illegal and void. The learned counsel in support of his contention to the effect that order is void as it has not been passed according to Section 56(6) of the Act, invited my attention to Section 56(6) and submitted that University could only withdraw the affiliation and it had to pass a reasoned order and communicate it to the college and it has not done so. The power to cancel the affiliation vested under Section 56 of the Act in the University. The other authorities had only to make recommendatory opinions including Government as the University has got power to pass any order of withdrawal or cancellation of affiliation. This contention of the petitioner was hotly contested by Shri R.H. Chandanagoudar, learned counsel for the University. The learned counsel submitted that, by order communication dated 4-7-1987 Annexure- 'G' petitioner has only communicated the decision of the Government. The Government orders should have been challenged by the petitioner. It has not done so and therefore, there is no question to challenge the communication dated 4-7-1987 Annexure- 'G'. He further submitted that as the Government Order has not been challenged in this writ petition and it should be dismissed as not maintainable.