RAWATPURA SARKAR UNIVERSITY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application put in by the Petitioner-University on 25.02.2019 for permission to commence various courses in Agriculture and allied sciences came to be rejected as per Annexure P/1 order dated 22.06.2019 issued by the 1st Respondent, pointing out that education in the field of Agriculture and allied sciences stands vested with the 4th Respondent-University as per the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (CG) Adhiniyam, 1987 (for short, 'the 1987 Act'). This made the Petitioner to challenge the said proceeding, simultaneously challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6 and 7 of the 1987 Act.

(2.) The prayers sought for in the writ petition are in the following terms:

(3.) The challenge is mainly on the ground that there is an encroachment from the part of the State into the field occupied by the Central Government and the Central Legislation, particularly infringing Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short, 'the 1956 Act'). It is contended that the 1987 Act is confined only to three Revenue Divisions of 'Raipur, Bilaspur and Bastar' in the State, whereas the State consists of two more Divisions by name 'Surguja' and 'Durg' and that the State is not competent to enact any law which is territorial in operation. Since nothing is mentioned with regard to the students/Institutions in the Durg and Surguja Divisions, there is a clear instance of discrimination as well and the people/students in the said two Divisions are put to utmost hardships. Since the PetitionerUniversity constituted under the Chhattisgarh Private Universities (Establishment and Operation) Act, 2005 (as amended in 2018) (for short, 'the 2005 Act') is having jurisdiction all over the State of Chhattisgarh, the application could not have been rejected, especially when the Divisions 'Durg' and 'Surguja' stand intact/untouched by the statute. According to the Petitioner, it is a subject matter connected with 'Higher Education' and coming under the Entry 66 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule; which will override the Entries 14 and 32 of List II (State List). It is contended that the Central Act i.e. the 1956 Act will prevail over the State Act and hence, Entry 25 of the List III (Concurrent List) cannot be pressed into service. It is also pointed out that Section 6 and 7 of the 1987 Act are violative of the 'fundamental rights', also since it fixes territorial limits and no valid object is to be achieved for such course. It is further contended that because of the 1956 Act, any University, after its incorporation or conferment of the deemed status under Section 3 of the said Act, can offer any course and hence a particular subject cannot be earmarked for a particular University or no monopoly can be created in favour of any University, whether it be a State University or not.