COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, NEHRU SANSKRIT MAHAVIDYALAYA Vs. UPKUL SACHIV (SAMBADTHATA), SAMPURNANAND SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A communication dated 13.2.1990 of the Deputy Registrar (Affiliation) of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the University) is being impugned in the present petition. It appears that election of the Committee of Management of Nehru Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Bari Barahata, district Jaunpur, took place. The petitioner, claiming itself to be duly elected body, sought recognition of the University under Sub -section (13) of Section 2 of the U.P. State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Deputy Registrar, by the impugned communication, informed the, District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur that the question of management, was in dispute and till a decision is taken any action taken by the present management should not be considered to be valid. He also made an endorsement to the effect that the dispute may be referred for adjudication to the Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi, according to the Statute 12.28. The petitioner is really aggrieved by the said endorsement of the Deputy Registrar,

(2.) UNDER sub -section (13) of Section 2 of the Act the jurisdiction to recognise the managing committee of an affiliated or associated college vests in the University. Statute 12.28 as it originally stood, authorised the Vice -chancellor to adjudicate upon the question as to which of the two rival claimants was in actual control and possession of the property of an affiliated or associated college. It appears that the said statute had been amended and for "Vice -Chancellor" "the Regional Deputy Director of Education was substituted.

(3.) JUDICIAL notice can be taken of the fact that the Vice -Chancellor of a University has multifarious duties and probably the statute making authority while amending the statute 12.28 was anxious to reduce the burden of the Vice Chancellor. The controversy envisaged in statute 12.28 will obviously be time consuming us the authority deciding the question of actual control and possession will not only have to balance the claims of the rival contenders but will also be required to sift the material placed by them. Therefore, there should be no difficulty in taking the view that, if and when a bona fide dispute between two rival claimants exists before the Vice Chancellor he will stay his hands before recognising the managing committee concerned and allow the Regional Deputy Director to adjudicate upon the dispute. It necessarily follows that the initial jurisdiction of the Vice -chancellor, who acts on behalf of the University, will continue to reside in him under sub -section (13) of Section 2 The matter will, therefore, be first placed before him for consideration and if be is satisfied that no real or bona fide dispute exists between the two rival claimants he will exercise the power of recognising the managing committee. On the other band, if he comes to the conclusion that a bona fide dispute exists he will, as already indicated, await the decision of the Regional Deputy Director. This process, therefore, will involve an application of mind by the Vice -chancellor.