Mandatory statutory sequence and natural justice required before university dissolution; defective notices could not cure the breach.

Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009 was read as requiring the State Government first to issue corrective directions to the University management and, only on non-compliance, to proceed toward winding up after giving the sponsor a reasonable opportunity. The Court held that show-cause notices and the dissolution process could not replace this mandatory statutory sequence and that the procedure adopted also failed the requirements of natural justice. A defective or post-decisional opportunity could not cure the breach where the authority had already reached a concluded view. The dissolution order and notices were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dissolution proceedings and show-cause notices issued against the University complied with the statutory procedure under Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009 and the principles of natural justice; (ii) whether the impugned dissolution order could stand when the State had not first issued directions in the manner contemplated by the statute.

Issue (i): Whether the dissolution proceedings and show-cause notices issued against the University complied with the statutory procedure under Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009 and the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Section 48 required the State Government, upon identifying alleged mismanagement or related failures, to issue directions to the management and, only if those directions were not followed, to consider winding up the University after affording a reasonable opportunity to the sponsor. The Court found that the impugned notices and order did not satisfy this statutory sequence and that the process adopted was inconsistent with the requirement of fair hearing and fair procedure. It held that a post-decisional or otherwise defective opportunity could not cure the breach where the authority had already proceeded on a concluded view.

Conclusion: The statutory procedure and principles of natural justice were not complied with, and the challenge succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned dissolution order could stand when the State had not first issued directions in the manner contemplated by the statute.

Analysis: The Court interpreted Section 48 to mean that the power to direct corrective action vested in the State Government and that such directions were a condition precedent to any decision to wind up the University. It held that the show-cause notices could not substitute for the statutory directions and that the dissolution order, made without following the mandated steps, was vitiated. The Court therefore treated the action as contrary to the legislative scheme and liable to judicial interference.

Conclusion: The dissolution order could not be sustained because the mandatory preconditions under Section 48 were not followed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned dissolution order and the show-cause notices were quashed, and the University's writ petition was allowed to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a specific sequence for adverse administrative action, that sequence must be followed strictly, and any decision taken without compliance with the mandatory procedural steps and fair hearing requirements is liable to be set aside.

---