NARAYANAN Vs. T K RAVINDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is for a writ of Quo Warranto or any other appropriate writ, order or direction preventing the respondent from exercising his authority as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calicut. The petitioner is a citizen of India and he challenges the appointment of the respondent as Vice Chancellor. There is no dispute relating to the qualification of the person appointed and also the legality of the appointment made under the relevant statute. S.10 of the Calicut University Act, 1975 provides for appointment of the Vice Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the unanimous recommendation of a committee appointed by him consisting of three members, one elected by the Senate, one nominated by the Chairman of the University Grants Commission and the third nominated by the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall appoint one of the members of the committee to be its Convener. The Committee shall make its recommendation within a period of three months of its appointment. No person who is more than 60 years of age shall be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor shall hold office for a term of four years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall be eligible for reappointment. There is a provision that a Vice-Chancellor shall not be appointed as such for more than two terms. The duties of the Vice-Chancellor are also mentioned in S.10. S.9 of the Calicut University Act enumerates the Officers of the University and S.7 says that the Governor of Kerala shall, by virtue of his office, be the Chancellor of the University. The Chancellor shall be the Head of the University and sub-section (9) of S.7 gives him the power to remove the Vice-Chancellor or the Pro-Vice Chancellor from office by an order in writing on charges of mis-appropriation or mismanagement of funds or misbehaviour. There is provision for conducting enquiry before the Vice-Chancellor is removed. The Chancellor exercises the visitorial jurisdiction in the University and this jurisdiction is conferred on him because of the high eminence of the University and if any mis-behaviour or mis-conduct or irregularity is found in the academic or in other fields in the University, the same has to be brought to the notice of the Chancellor. He exercises the visitorial jurisdiction. The law of visitorial jurisdiction has recently been clarified by the House of Lords in the case of dismissed University Lecturer, holding that it extends to all questions arising out of institution internal rules, notwithstanding that they involve contractual relation and notwithstanding that the complainant is not a member of the institution. The extent of visitorial jurisdiction has greatly expanded in recent years. (See Wade HWR 6th Edn. p. 568).

(2.) In this case there is no dispute relating to the qualification to be appointed as Vice Chancellor or any complaint regarding any violation of the relevant statutory provisions in the case of appointment. The case pleaded in the petition is that the Vice Chancellor failed to exercise the power or abused the power. The powers are classified as Administrative and financial. Under the Administrative Head several omissions and commissions have been detailed from A to Q in the petition. Similarly under the Head financial powers the omissions and commissions have been detailed under A to F in the petition. These facts constitute misbehaviour or misconduct, according to the petitioner and therefore the respondent is liable to be restrained from exercising the power.

(3.) I feel that the prayer in the writ petition viz. issuance of a writ of Quo Warranto is not prima facie maintainable. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has taken a point departing from usual grounds on which Quo Warranto can be issued. Normally, writ of Quo Warranto can be issued only when the qualification of the appointee is disputed or when there is violation of any statutory provision in making the appointment in question, to show under the what authority the incumbent is holding its office. According to the petitioner a departure has to be made and it is submitted that the writ can be issued even incases where the appointment has been made according to law, but the appointee is not discharging his duties properly, or maladministering, or committing misconduct while in office. It is submitted that in such case, Quo Warranto can be issued. He referred to the decision in Rex v. Spever 1916 (1) KB 595 (LJ (1916) 85 KBD NS 630). He also referred to the decision in Peter v. Kendal & another, 30 R.R. 504 also reported in All. E.R. reprint 1824-1834 page 24. The decision reported in Rex v. Spever 1916 (1) KB 595 is related to the appointment of two Privy Council members. The question was posed as to under what Authority they were holding as members of the Privy Council. In that context the scope of writ of prohibition Quo Warranto etc. had to be examined. In the historical background a preliminary question was posed as to whether the writ is maintainable at the instance of a private person. While answering the question relating to locus standi, it was held that as in the case of writ of mandamus or writ of prohibition Quo warranto also can be availed of at the instance of the petitioner. The observation of Lush, J. is as follows:-