NRIPENDRANATH GOSWAMI Vs. REGISTRAR, GAUHATI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule arises out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The admitted facts are that the Petitioner Sri Nripendranath Goswami was conferred a degree of Bachelor of Arts by the Gauhati University in the Convocation which was held in April 1965. He, however, in November 1964 got admitted into the post graduate classes in the 'Department of Political Science' of the University. The relevant facts thereafter are that some disturbances are alleged to have taken place in the University campus on the 4th May 1965, whereupon the Vice Chancellor tendered his resignation and the matter was placed before the emergent meeting of the Executive Council of the Gauhati University. The Executive Council decided that the degree of the Petitioner should be cancelled and further that he should be expelled from the University for taking active part himself and for instigating others to take part in the disturbances leading to the outbreak of violence on the part of the students in the Administrative Building of the University on the 4th May, 1964. This resolution of the Executive Council was communicated to the Petitioner by the Registrar. It is this resolution of the Executive Council which has been impugned by the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) MR . Ghose who appears for the Petitioner, has canvassed three points before us. His first contention is that the power to cancel the degree of the Petitioner and to expel him from the University could not be exercised by the Executive Council. It is the Court of the University which had power to cancel the degree of the present Petitioner. Secondly he contends that if it is held that the University has been given the power to cancel the degree of any student, such a power is a naked and arbitrary power, as no limitations have been placed on that power. No procedure has been provided under the rules as to how the University has to exercise such a power and further no guidance has been given in the Gauhati University Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') itself for exercising such a power. The power thus should be struck down as it is violative of Articles 19 and 14 of the Constitution. Thirdly it is urged that having regard to the nature of the power and the circumstances of the case, there is a duty cast upon the authority when exercising such a power to act judicially and therefore the order of the Executive Council is amenable to a writ of certiorari by this Court. It is urged that as the principles of natural justice have been violated, in this case, inasmuch as no opportunity was given to the Petitioner to meet the charges or to explain his position, this Court should exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution and quash the resolution passed by the Executive Council.

(3.) IN order to decide these points it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of die Act. Section 5 lays down the powers which the University has got. Section 5(e) lays down that the University shall have the power to withdraw or cancel degrees, diplomas, certificates or other distinctions granted or conferred. Sections 5(1) lays down that the University has power to supervise and. control the residence and discipline of students of the University, and to make arrangements for promoting their health and general welfare.