TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. As a matter of fact, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered between the Fifth Respondent/Registrar, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore and the Petitioner, on 7.7.2010. As pointed out by the Standing Committee report dated 2.5.2007, the required infrastructures and other facilities were developed in respect of the College. The College had required number of eminent Faculty Members, well-equipped Library, well-equipped Laboratories, Hostel, Orchard, fields, and other facilities, etc. Therefore, a request was made on 25.4.2011 to the Third Respondent seeking to increase the admission strength of the students for B.Sc (Agri) Degree course from 60 to 120 seats. Taking into account the infrastructural facilities available in the College, the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, by means of proceedings dated 20.6.2011 provisionally approved the proposal for increasing the admission strength of B.Sc. (Agri) degree course from 60 to 120 seats from the academic year 2011-2012 onwards with a rider that infrastructure and other facilities should be fulfilled within three months....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interim order of injunction was granted, the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore by means of proceedings dated 3.7.2015 reverted back Dr. K. Sivasubramanian who was on deputation as Dean In charge of the College abruptly. Since the Dean was withdrawn by the University, a request was made by the Petitioner to permit the Trust to appoint a Dean for the College by way of direct recruitment by following the norms of TNAU/ICAR. However, there was no reply from the University. Therefore, the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore by means of communication dated 5.10.2015 asked the Petitioner to renew the Memorandum of Understanding entered between the University and the Petitioner Trust. Pursuant to the same, the Petitioner College gave objections for renewal of M.O.U on the ground that there is no clause as to the renewal of Memorandum of Understanding once in four years and the same is against the ingredients of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act 1971 and Statutes of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and its regulations. 2.3 As a matter of fact, a due reply was sent by the College relating to the ownership of the land po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... breach of Trust, bonafide belief and expectation and the Trust failed to fulfill its commitments, bounden duty and mandatory requirements for offering good education for the single course viz. B.Sc (Agriculture). Therefore the demand of the Sree Krishna Education Trust to grant affiliation to offer additional courses was also not considered. (c). Besides, the Management of the College of Agricultural Technology has collected examination fees from the students, but failed to remit the required 65 per cent of the examination fee to the University in one lump sum but sent the examination fee in piece meal, as stated in its letter dated 5.12.2015. Further as admitted by the College in its letter dated 22.3.2016 the College is in arrears of remittance of the examination fee of Rs. 7,05,237/- for the academic years from 2012-2015 and the College has applied for time upto June 2016. As per the report of the Controller of Examinations of the University (vide letter dated 21.03.2016) also the actual total amount due from the College comes to Rs. 7,13,102/-. Thus the management of Sree Krishna Education Trust is not proper in remitting the examination fee due to the University, kno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....niversity on 7.7.2010. Further neither in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act 1971 nor Statutes of the Tamil Nadu Agriculture University nor its regulations nor in the hand book of guidelines for establishing Agricultural College, anything is stated pertaining to the fresh/renewal of Memorandum Of Understanding between the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and affiliated Colleges. As against the communication dated 5.10.2015, objections were sent to the University on 18.2.2016. As such, it cannot be construed as deliberate breach of one of the conditions prescribed in the order of the Notification dated 7.7.2010. 2.6 Besides the above, even in the notification dated 7.7.2010, it was mentioned only to execute a MOU with TNAU before commencement of the course, which does not speak about the renewal of the MOU once in four years. It is false to state that the Petitioner had not satisfied the infrastructural facilities prescribed for B.Sc (Agri) in the guidelines of norms for affiliation of institutions to TNAU for offering B.Sc (Agri) Degree programme and thus committed a breach of Trust bonafide belief and expectation of the University. In fact, the Standing Sub Committee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant to the issuant of show cause notice was very much in force, the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore sent a communication to the Petitioner on 08.06.2016 as to visit of Standing Committee of TNAU on 10.6.2016 to assess the infrastructure and other facilities available for continuing B.Sc (Agri) degree course. Since the College is fully equipped with vast extent of campus covering 130 acres with all facilities like academic block with 20 class rooms, 8 + 6 Laboratories, Hostel for Boys and Girls which could accommodate 800 students with all basic facilities but the standing committee though not approved by Board of Management as required under law, without any locus standi hurriedly visited the campus with a preconceived notion and left without verifying the facts besides conducting field inspection. When the matter came up for hearing on 20.06.2016 this Court extended the stay till 12.8.2016 with a rider to notify the students about the pendency of the writ petition besides the admission of students by the Institution for the current academic 2016-17 is subject to the result of the writ petition. On 27.6.2016, this Court was pleased to observe that in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without awaiting for its reply, on 03.07.2016 the subject impugned order was passed thereby reducing the students admission strength from 120 to 60 for the academic year 2016-2017. Though the Counseling commenced on 04.07.2016, it was received by the Petitioner only on 08.07.2016. The signature dated 05.07.2016 of the Deputy Registrar (Education) would substantiate the Petitioner's contention. For the name sake, a response was sought for and without even providing 24 hours time, the subject order has been passed. There were many instances to the fact that the Fourth Respondent is bent on creating all sorts of troubles to close the Petitioner College. One instance is that every year the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University would issue a information Brochure for Under-Graduate admissions. As usual, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Under - Graduation Admissions 2016 - Information Brochure was published in the website of the University wherein in the caption of College details, Table - 2, i.e. Courses offered at affiliated Colleges of TNAU, a asterisk has been marked as against the course offered by our College. Below the above stated tabular column, it was found that the said as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion granted to the Petitioner-College should not be withdrawn, against which, the Petitioner had already filed W.P. No. 14328 of 2016 before the Principal seat of this Court and the same is pending. Inasmuch the impugned order was issued due to the lack of infrastructure and the Writ Petition filed in respect of the same is pending, as stated supra, the present writ petition filed by the Petitioner is clearly abuse of process of Law and the Court. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that score. 3.2 As a matter of fact, in the interim order passed on 27.06.2016 in W.P. No. 14328 of 2016, the Principal Seat of this Court had granted liberty to the Fifth Respondent to serve the standing committee report to the Petitioner and after eliciting their response, shall proceed further in accordance with law. In fact, the Standing Inspection Committee report was already sent on 21.06.2016 to the Petitioner/College and the Petitioner/College had not responded and therefore, a reminder was sent on 02.07.2016. Even then, the Petitioner had not responded and in view of the Counseling process for admission of students for the year 2016-2017 was fixed, the Academic Council....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....versity Colleges. Therefore, the reduction of students' admission strength is valid in law. 3.4 Because of the insufficient infrastructure available in the Petitioner/College for a single Course i.e. B.Sc.(Agri.) course, the request made to offer new courses so as to mint money without the required infrastructure facilities was not considered by the University, which is well within the domain of Experts of the University and valid in law. In regard to the Admission Information Brochure, 2015 the University had directed the candidates being admitted to the private Colleges, also to remit the First year fee to the University. It is pointed out that as per the conditions of MOU, the University offered to provide the services of Senior Professors to serve as Principals in the Private Agricultural College on Foreign Service terms and conditions, to take up responsibility of students education and to maintain their performance on par with the student of University Colleges and the private Colleges accepted the same. In respect of two Colleges (including the Petitioner/College), they had not paid the salary to the Professor deputed to serve as Principal on the last working of the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... University. 3.7 As per the norms, the land used by the College should be in their own name or on long time lease of the College or Trust or Society, which is running the College so as to have continuous practical class by way of cultivation in the same land by the students as a part of agricultural education syllabi and curricula. However, in respect of Petitioner/College, the land was not in the name of College or Trust, but the land is owned by some other body viz. Lotus Gardens Private Ltd., Bangalore, which is a clear violation of accepted condition. Moreover, many reports received on encroachment, land grabbing, threatening, coercion etc. from local public. Therefore, the Respondent/University had issued the Show Cause Notice, dated 30.03.2016, which is under interim stay before the Principal Seat of this Court. 3.8 As regards the allegation made against the Fourth Respondent, it is denied as misleading and false. Further, the Fourth Respondent is very much interested in the academic performance of all the students, who are getting Degrees from the Respondent/University, since the University is world renowned and is getting schemes and projects from National and Interna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sent to the Petitioner/College on 21.06.2016 and the Petitioner/College had not filed any report on the fulfillment of the infrastructure or had not taken time to complete the required infrastructure, but the Petitioner/College kept silent and had not responded. Therefore on 02.07.2016, a further letter was sent to Petitioner/College, for which also, there is no response from the Petitioner/College. Therefore, based on over all stock situation of all the Colleges for admission of the students for the academic year 2016-2017, the Academic Council, supreme statutory body in respect of academic matters, has considered the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner/College and the irresponsive attitude of the Petitioner/College and the report of Standing Committee to reduce the admission strength from 120 to 60 and also considered that the show cause notice issued for withdrawal of provisional affiliation itself is stringent than reduction of admission strength. Therefore, it had directed to reduce the students admission strength from 120 to 60 based on 44.30% infrastructure available, which is valid in law. 3.11 Though the infrastructural facilities are not satisfied for 120 stude....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be rejected as malafide. 3.15 The Petitioner/College cannot expect the Fifth Respondent/University to be a silent spectator, while the Petitioner/College is not taking care of fulfilling the requirement for students' education, academic performance and welfare. The standing committees report has not been specifically denied by producing the records for fulfillment of the deficiencies or inviting the Standing Committee for re-inspection. However, the Petitioner/College has chosen to come before the Court whenever any direction is issued in the interest of students education, academic performance and welfare etc. In respect of some Medical Colleges, due to lack of infrastructure facilities, the students had agitated and were distributed and transferred to other Colleges and in such circumstances, the University became answerable for not monitoring the Colleges. Therefore, to avoid such a contingency, the Fifth Respondent/University has taken action, which is not malafide and illegal. 4. The Submissions of the Petitioner/College:-- 4.1 According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/College, the impugned order, dated 03.07.2016 issued by the Fifth Respondent/Un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view by obtaining reply from the Petitioner/College and after conduct of enquiry, then only an order must be passed. In the present case, it is pointed out on behalf of the Petitioner/College that straightaway the impugned order, dated was passed by the Fifth Respondent/University by reducing the students strength, which is against the procedure contemplated under Law, Statutes and Regulations of the University. 4.5 It is the contention of the Petitioner/College that the act of the Third and Fifth Respondent suffers from vice of predetermination of mind and earlier Standing Committee visited the Petitioner's College on 30.04.2014 pointing out certain minor deficiencies, which were constructive in nature and the same were implemented in letter and spirit and filed action taken report thereon. Under the said circumstances, the so called Standing Committee, which inspected on 10.06.2016 has not taken into consideration the earlier standing committee report and action taken thereon. In this connection, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/College takes a plea that from that point, the inspection should have commenced, but the reading of the remarks which is against the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainsaid. To insist on fulfilling all requirements, at a stretch in modern conditions, is not a practical proposition and ordinarily, only those aspects or requirements, which in the minimal will give a good start for effectively imparting education, with ancillary requisites may be considered sufficient, in the extraordinary circumstances of this case. (h) It is impractical to insist, for a fool proof or absolute adherence to all requirements without regard to their importance or relevance, for the purpose of imparting education, in a practical way, especially because the institution has begun to function, students admitted to institution have taken the examination and the fate of a good many number of students should not hang in the balance in an unending or everlasting manner. (i) In the final analysis, the question to be posed, is whether there exists the minimal and satisfactory requirements to keep the matter going, and not whether better arrangements that will render the set up more efficient and more satisfactory, should be insisted as "a wooden" rule. (j) It may be that there are some minor deficiencies here and there which call for rectification.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2015, the Government had directed the University to take action on the complaint of Amaravathi. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 5, by referring to the letter of the Fifth Respondent, dated 22.09.2015, addressed to the Petitioner/College submits that the Petitioner/College was required to rectify the deficiencies in its ownership of land of the Petitioner/College/Trust, construction of buildings and hostel to cope with the students requirement and to furnish a report on the complaint received against Trust on land grabbing of private land, encroachment of forest land, illegal quarrying of earth, rough stone, illicit taping of electricity and water, etc. Before 30.11.2015. 5.3 Further, it is represented on behalf of the Respondents 3 to 5 that on 5.10.2015, the Fifth Respondent/Registrar (incharge), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, requested the Petitioner/College, to renew the 'Memorandum Of Understanding', which contains new conditions to cope up with the development of academic and introduction of on-line admission system etc. 5.4 The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 5, by referring to the Petitioner's reply dated 19.10.2015, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is no laboratory for the following courses: Biochemistry, Seed Technology, Crop Physiology Food science Environmental sciences Biotechnology Veterinary and Animal Sciences (iv). Library facility is very poor. Library is inadequate for current strength of 480 days for four years. Only 1350 books are available after the passing of six years from the establishment of the College. (v). No placement cell. (vi). No central instrumentation facility with essential instruments, viz. HPLC, GC, GLC, HPTLC, AAS, pH Meter, Colorimeter, Pressure Plate apparatus, Flame photometer, EC meter etc. (vii). Hostel facilities is only partial. 5 boys accommodate in each room and 5 or 6 girls are accommodated in each room. (viii). No medical facilities. (ix). Practical classes are not conducted by taking the students to fields as crops are not raised systematically in different seasons. (x). Teaching staff are not sufficient. (only 16 teachers + 3 retired staff are working). (xi). NSS students are used as labours for harvesting, weeding, stone picking from fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order reducing the admission strength from 120 to 60 on 03.07.2017, the Petitioner sent the reply dated 07.07.2016 for the Standing Committee report and even in this reply, the Petitioner has admitted that certain deficiencies, all very constructive pointed out by the Standing Committee on 30.04.2014 was implemented. However, the Petitioner in the reply had not chosen to comply with the deficiencies pointed out by the Standing Committee on 18.06.2016, but demanded to restore the original strength of 120. Further, the Fifth Respondent sent Score Card of the Standing Committee to Petitioner to take up the remedial measure under each and every item. However, on 19.07.2016, the Petitioner had not furnished any reply on the fulfillment of the deficiencies pointed in the said SCORE CARD, but sent its own Self Assessment Score stating that the College has 925/1000 score i.e. "A" grade, which is not acceptable one. 5.11 The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 5 submits that the guidelines issued in 2007, is only for 60 students admission per year and as directed in the G.O. Ms. No. 123, the Petitioner has to fulfill all the infrastructural facilities within 6 months time granted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....984 under the directions of the High Court and as such the impugned Recognition Rules which came into force in the year 1989 cannot be made applicable to them. It is not disputed by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, that under the directions of the High Court temporary recognition was given to his clients, though according to him the order of the Government granting temporary recognition was challenged before the High Court- and the said petition was also disposed of by the impugned judgment. We see no force in the contention of the Learned Counsel. All those institutes which did not have permanent recognition before the issue of the Recognition Rules are bound to comply with the said conditions before they are entitled to permanent recognition. The High Court was justified in holding that the institutions which were operating on the basis of temporary recognitions, either under the orders of the Courts or otherwise, shall to comply with the recognition rules to enable them to earn recognition." 5.13 The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 5 relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BABA MUNGIPA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE STUDENTS GUARDIAN FORUMS AND ANOTHER v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Respondents 3 to 5 refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. SUBHARTI K.K.B. CHARITABLE Trust reported in 2001 (5) SCC 486, at special Page No. 496, wherein at paragraph No. 12, it is observed as follows:-- "At present, there is tremendous change in social values and environment. Some persons consider nothing wrong in commercialising education. Still however, private institutions cannot be permitted to have educational 'shops' in the country. Therefore, there are statutory prohibitions for establishing and administering educational institution without prior permission or approval by the concerned authority. On occasions, the concerned authorities, for various reasons, fail to discharge their function in accordance with the statutory provisions, rules and regulations. In some cases, because of the zeal to establish such educational institution by persons having means to do so, approach the authorities, but because of red-tapism or for extraneous reasons, such permissions are not granted or are delayed. As against this, it has been pointed out that instead of charitable institutions, persons having means, considering th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and Findings:-- 6.1 At the outset, this Court pertinently points out that the First Respondent/Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Agriculture Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9, as per G.O. (D) No. 123 Agriculture (AU) Department dated 21.06.2010, issued orders permitting the Petitioner to establish the Institute in the name and style of 'College of Agricultural Technology' at Kullapuram, Theni District for offering B.Sc (Agri) Degree Course after duly obtaining affiliation from the Fifth Respondent from the academic year 2010-2011 together with other conditions. More particularly, all the aspects in the report of the Standing Committee (Contrition No. 2) was to be satisfied and six months time was granted to fulfill the conditions (Condition No. 11) and that the Respondent/University would follow its guidelines for grant affiliation to the Agriculture College (Condition No. 12). Furthermore, on 07.07.2010, the Respondent/University passed an order granting provisional affiliation for B.Sc (Agri) Degree Course only from the academic year 2010-2011 with students strength of 60 prescribing important conditions that the conditions prescribed by the Government and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rust will provide an undertaking from the Board of M/s. Lotus Gardens Private Limited, for leasing of their land for the College. In regard to the complaint of one Amaravathi, the Petitioner/College/Trust, gave a reply that it is beyond the concern of the University. 6.5 In the instant case, it transpires that the Petitioner had filed W.P.(MD) No. 10807 of 2015, before the Madurai Bench of this Court, challenging the Admission Information Brochure for the year 2015, since it is the plea of the Petitioner that the same is not in consonance with the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act, 1971, besides the agreement entered into between the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore and the Petitioner. It appears that in M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2015 in W.P.(MD) No. 10807 of 2015, an interim injunction was granted on 13.06.2015. 6.6 It is also represented on behalf of the Respondents 3 to 5 that the Petitioner/College had not paid the 'Leave salary' to the Principal of the Petitioner/College (though under foreign service terms and conditions, the Petitioner/College should pay leave salary and reimburse the same amount from the University). As such, the Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essed a letter to the Petitioner, to rectify the deficiencies recorded in the Standing Committee Report, dated 16.06.2016 and suggestion to reduce admission strength to 60. 6.11 At this stage, this Court, pertinently mentions that in the communication dated 21.06.2016 of the Fifth Respondent/Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, nowhere an explanation was sought for from the Petitioner, but a perusal of the said letter, dated 21.06.2016 clearly indicates that the copy of the Standing Committee report (inspected on 10.06.2016) for rectification of the deficiencies at the earliest, was sent to the Petitioner/Trust/College and in fact, it was also mentioned that the details of land document provided by the Trust will be verified and the land details will be sent separately. As a matter of fact, only on 02.07.2016, an explanation was sought for the report of the Standing Committee. Indeed, in the letter bearing No. E1/W.P. No. 14238/2016, dated 02.07.2016, the Fifth Respondent/Registrar (In charge), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, addressed to the Petitioner had requested for sending for response for the Standing Committee Report immediately. On the next da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it in exercise of such power. Also that, an appearance of 'injustice' is denial of 'Justice', as opined by this Court. 6.17 Besides the above, the Rules of Natural Justice cannot be avoided and mere non-observance of these non-statutory Rules are adequate enough to set aside an administrative quasi judicial orders/findings. After all, 'Fairness of Procedure', is the corner stone of legality. The non-observance of Natural Justice itself is a proof of prejudice and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of Natural Justice, was unnecessary, as opined by this Court. 6.18 In the instant case on hand, the Fifth Respondent/Registrar (In charge), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, in reference No. E1/W.P. No. 14238/2016, dated 02.07.2016, addressed to the Petitioner had observed that the Standing Committee in the report in respect of reduction of students strength from 120 to 60 and time limit of six months for improving the infrastructure facility and staff strength was already sent on 21.06.2016 and the same was forwarded. On 23.06.2016 and further informed that the Petitioner's response in this regard was not received so far. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Coimbatore, dated 03.07.2016 communicating the reduction of strength at 60 from the academic year addressed to the Petitioner suffers from legal infirmity. Resultantly, this Court, to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice, interferes with the impugned order, dated 03.07.2016 of the Fifth Respondent/Registrar (In charge), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, and sets aside the same. 6.20 In fine, the writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The impugned proceedings in No. E1/AC. 131/II.4/2016 of the Fifth Respondent/Registrar (In charge), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, dated 03.07.2016, is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this writ petition. The Academic Council of the Respondent/University is directed to look into the reply of the Petitioner/Trust/College, dated 07.07.2016 in threadbare fashion (for the Standing Committee Report) and to take a final decision in the subject matter in issue by providing necessary opportunity to the Petitioner/College/Trust by adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice and to pass a reasoned speaking order on merits in a fai....