BHASKAR NARAYANRAO BAND Vs. VICE-CHANCELLOR, NAGPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship after setting out the facts, proceeded], So far as the main petition is concerned, it is contended that the provisions of Section 12 of the Nagpur University Act and Regulation No. 8 read with Regulations 45 and 54 clearly clothe the Vice -Chancellor with the power to refuse to send a particular topic or resolution to the agenda, It is incidentally alleged that the petitioner has not moved this Court out of any particular regard for the proper working of the University or the proper functioning of the Vice -Chancellor. He has a personal axe to grind, and a Committee has been appointed by the Vice -Chancellor to enquire into the complaints received against the petitioner as the Principal of a College. Even that reference has no particular relevance for deciding the very limited issue that arises, in this writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to me, the proposition that follows for decision is very simple and equally clear. Before I examine the provisions of the Nagpur University Act as well as the Regulations and discuss the case law which is cited before me, let me analyse the resolution which is proposed by the petitioner for consideration of the Court. The resolution is as follows: Be it resolved that this University Court feels it very urgent and expedient that the Hon'ble Chancellor of the Nagpur University and his Excellency the Governor of Maharashtra State, be apprised of the discontent and dissatisfaction prevailing in the functioning of the affairs of the Nagpur University during the regime of the Vice -Chancellor, Dr. V. B. Kolte, on account of the Vice -Chancellor's acts of favouritism and nepotism in matters of employment, creating a sense of insecurity amongst the University employees; by his acts of undue interference in the functioning of the Faculties of the University his unwarranted interference in the affiliation of new colleges and continuance of affiliations and in the managements of the affiliated college, bringing about wholesale dissatisfaction amongst the students, the teachers and the public interested in University education and for that reason this Court requests the Hon'ble Chancellor to appoint a Committee under the provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 8 of the Nagpur University Act, 1963 to cause an enquiry to be made in respect of the matters referred to above and to take necessary action against Vice -Chancellor Dr. V.B. Kolte for the mal -administration. Proposer : -Sd/ - B.N. Band. Member of the University Court. Date : 29th Jan. 1960.Seconder : Sd/ - S. G. Kukday, Member , University Court.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner Mr. Kukday particularly emphasised the rights of the Vice -Chancellor to shut out the consideration of such a resolution. That, in fact, was the main burden of his song. He examined the various provisions of the Act as well as the Regulations from that point of view. That approach, of course, will be considered by me in due course. However, it must be made amply clear that this is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The University is an autonomous and self contained body. It is a creation of a statute and has to function within the limits of that statute. It has a hierarchy of officers and bodies whose functions and duties have been specified. So long as these bodies and officers are conducting themselves honestly and faithfully in the spirit of enforcing the Act as well as the Regulations, the bona fides of their acts will have to be presumed. A person, who wants to make an attack on the bona fides, will have to lead before the Court satisfactory evidence to induce this Court to hold otherwise. Besides the academicians, who are primarily supposed to conduct the affairs of the University, are not necessarily trained lawyers. They have to interpret the provisions of the Act as well as the statutes and Regulations during the course of the administration of the University. When a certain view of the provisions is taken and that is a possible view, then Courts will be slow to exercise their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of interference with the smooth working of an institution of this type. An additional rider can be added that for a person to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with a grievance, he must at least make out a case that the subject -matter of his grievance falls squarely within some provisions of the Nagpur University Act and still he was not allowed to function by exercising certain rights which are conferred upon him, may be as a member of this body or that body.