1991 (10) TMI 328 - HC - Indian Laws

University Ordered to Process B.H.M.S Course Affiliation Request, State Government Must Act in 45 Days.

Modern Homeopaths Society Versus State of Karnataka

The HC quashed the University's letter dated 15-4-1991, which refused the continuation of affiliation for the B.H.M.S course. The Court directed the ... - Issues Involved:1. Refusal of affiliation for the academic year 1991-92.2. Compliance with conditions for affiliation.3. Procedural requirements under Section 53 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976.4. Role of the State Government in the affiliation process.Detailed Analysis:1. Refusal of Affiliation for the Academic Year 1991-92:The petitioners, a registered society and its affiliated Homeopathic College, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to grant affiliation for the academic year 1991-92. They also sought a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 15-4-1991 from the second respondent-University, which refused the continuation of affiliation for the Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (B.H.M.S) course.The second respondent-University contended that the Local Inquiry Committee recommended not to continue the affiliation based on their inspection, and this recommendation was accepted by the Academic Council and the Syndicate. Consequently, the University issued the impugned letter directing the petitioners not to make admissions for the year 1991-92.2. Compliance with Conditions for Affiliation:The petitioners argued that the College had adhered to the conditions imposed by the University when affiliation was initially granted for the academic year 1989-90. They claimed to have appointed sufficient full-time teachers, secured land for construction, and made provision for a development fund. They contended that any deficiencies pointed out by the University had been addressed, and any remaining issues would be resolved within a reasonable time.The University, however, maintained that the College had failed to comply with several conditions imposed for the continuation of affiliation, as highlighted in the Local Inquiry Committee's report. The University argued that the power to grant or refuse affiliation lies within its authority under the proviso to Sub-section (9) of Section 53 of the Act.3. Procedural Requirements under Section 53 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976:The petitioners contended that the University's refusal to continue affiliation without referring the matter to the State Government violated Section 53 of the Act. They argued that the University was required to submit the application and proceedings to the State Government for approval before making a final decision.The Court agreed with the petitioners, noting that Section 53(5) of the Act mandates the University to submit the application and all related proceedings to the State Government, which then makes recommendations for the grant or refusal of affiliation. The Court found that the University's refusal to continue affiliation without involving the State Government was in violation of this statutory requirement.4. Role of the State Government in the Affiliation Process:The Court emphasized that the State Government has a significant role in the affiliation process as per Section 53(5) of the Act. The Court held that the University could not unilaterally refuse affiliation without submitting the relevant documents and proceedings to the State Government for its recommendations.The Court referred to the decision in INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, which clarified that Section 53 covers all types of affiliations, including those seeking continuation for a further period. The Court also noted that the proviso to Sub-section (9) of Section 53 should not be interpreted to give the University the power to refuse affiliation without State Government involvement, as this would undermine the statutory scheme and the State Government's role.Conclusion:The Court quashed the impugned letter dated 15-4-1991 and directed the University to submit the application and proceedings to the State Government within two weeks. The State Government was then required to take action as per Section 53(5) of the Act within 45 days. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded.