GODWIIN SAMRAJ D.P. Vs. M. ABDUL SALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed as a public interest litigation. The first petitioner, an Associate Professor, is the member of Senate of the University of Calicut and the second petitioner is a prominent social activist in Malappuram District, where the Calicut University situates. Both the petitioners, by this public interest litigation, have highlighted the sordid state of affairs in the University and are complaining the extra jurisdictional acts of the respondents in operating beyond the territorial limits of the University by operating in various foreign countries.

(2.) The public interest litigation was entertained by this Court and notices were issued to respondents 8 to 31, which are study centres overseas permitted by the University of Calicut. Some of the respondents overseas have been served with notices and notices with regard to some of the centres had not been served. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University accepted notice for respondents 1 to 4 and 32. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fifth respondent Chancellor of the University of Calicut. The University Grants Commission (for short, "the UGC"), 7th respondent, is also represented by the counsel, who has filed a detailed statement.

(3.) The facts of the case, which emerged from pleadings of the parties are: The State Legislature enacted the Calicut University Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to reorganise the University of Calicut with a view to establishing a teaching, residential and affiliating University for the northern districts of the State of Kerala. Section 4 of the Act provides for territorial limits. According to Section 4(1) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the University shall extend to the revenue districts of Cannanore, Kozhikode, Malappuram, Palghat and Thrissur of the State. The petitioners in the Writ Petition have pleaded that the first respondent, who is functioning as the Vice- Chancellor, is not only mismanaging and misconducting the affairs of the University, but also conducting grave financial irregularities, flouting the University Act and the Statute. It is stated that contravening the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, respondents 1 to 4 colluded together in granting illegal approvals and affiliations to 24 private counseling centres overseas run by respondents 8 to 31. The UGC is vested with the authority to co-ordinate and determine the standards of higher education in the country by an Act of Parliament. The UGC time and again has reiterated that no University should go beyond the territorial jurisdiction. Public notices and several notifications were issued by the UGC in that regard. It is stated that the University by distance mode of education cannot operate beyond its territorial limits of jurisdiction. It is pleaded that respondents 1 to 4 have granted permissions to respondents 8 to 31 to run study centres after entering into an MoU, which has been withheld by respondents 1 to 4 from this Court. The second respondent has visited UAE as a sales executive. Allegations have been made that vigilance enquiry is pending against the second respondent and respondents 1 and 2 are not fit persons to hold the post of Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellor. In the Writ Petition the following reliefs have been claimed: