BISWAJIT BHATTACHARYA v. CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY — 1982 DIGILAW 200 (CAL)

B. C. RAY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners who are the students of the Surendra Nath Law College and the South Calcutta Girls' Law College have assailed in this writ application the legality and validity of the revised regulations for admission to the LL. B. Course framed by the Calcutta University Council on August 31, 1979 as well as on 7th December, 1979 on the ground that those regulations are not properly framed and as such they are illegal and unenforceable in law. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in a short compass, are as follows: the petitioners after obtaining the degrees in Arts, Science and Commerce got themselves admitted in the sessions 1979-1980 and in the sessions 1980-1981 in the Surendra Nath Law College as well as in the South Calcutta Girls' Law College, on payment of necessary admission fees and other charges. They prosecuted their studies for a full one session and after completing their course of studies they wanted to fill up the necessary forms for appearing at the Preliminary LL. B. Examination to be held in June, 1982. The petitioners, however, were not supplied any forms for appearing at the said examination and they were told that they would not be given the admit cards by the Calcutta University Council for appearing at the said Preliminary LL. B. Examination. It has been stated that on or about 31st August, 1979, the Principal, Surendra Nath Law College, received a Memo purported to have been issued by the Registrar, Calcutta University, intimating that the revised regulations for the LL. B. Course had since been approved by the Calcutta University Council and the same had come into force with effect from the session beginning in December, 1979 and it was also stated in terms of the revised regulations, admission to the LL. B. first year was open only to the Honours Graduates, the holders of a Master Degree or a Pass Graduate degree with at least 45% marks in the aggregate. It has been further stated that the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law had considered the question laying down uniform norms for the admission to all the Law Colleges under the University and had resolved that certain norms be uniformly followed by all the Law Colleges under the University while making admission to the First Year, LL. B. Classes. It has been further stated that the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law had considered the question laying down uniform norms for the admission to all the Law Colleges under the University and had resolved that certain norms be uniformly followed by all the Law Colleges under the University while making admission to the First Year, LL. B. Classes. This letter was annexed as Annexure 'a' to the petition. It has been stated that this letter has neither the force of law nor it has been duly issued in accordance with law. It was also pleaded in the petition that the alleged revised regulations which were said to be considered by the Sub-committee of Post-Graduate Studies in Law in its purported meeting held on 17. 9. 79 had not the sanction of relevant Statute nor was it effective or sufficient for altering an existing regulation for admission in the LL. B. First Year Course. It has also been pleaded that inspite of the said regulations the University Authorities allowed a large number of students to sit for the Preliminary LL. B. Examination of those who were admitted in the LL. B. First Year for December, 1979 session who, though not had obtained 45% marks in aggregate and they also appeared at the University Examination. ( 3 ) ANOTHER letter dated 20th November, 1980 was issued by the Registrar, Calcutta University, to the Principal, Surendra Nath Law College, intimating that the Committee of Post-Graduate Studies in Law had with the approval of the Calcutta University Council resolved that certain norms in the matter of admitting students to the First Year LL. B. Classes were to be uniformly followed by all the Law Colleges. One of the norms mentioned therein was that no student who has obtained less than 40% marks in his pass course degree be admitted to LL. B. Course. The Calcutta University also issued a Press Note to that effect on 19th February, 1982. ( 4 ) IT has been pleaded that the impugned regulations laying down the conditions of admission to different courses of studies are of no legal effect inasmuch as they were not properly framed by the Calcutta University Council in accordance with the provisions of the Calcutta University Act, the Statutes and Regulations framed thereunder. ( 4 ) IT has been pleaded that the impugned regulations laying down the conditions of admission to different courses of studies are of no legal effect inasmuch as they were not properly framed by the Calcutta University Council in accordance with the provisions of the Calcutta University Act, the Statutes and Regulations framed thereunder. It has therefore been prayed that an appropriate Writ in the nature of Mandamus should be issued commanding the respondents to rescind, recall and/or withdraw the impugned Memos, being Annexures 'a' and 'b' to the petition and not to give any effect or further effect to them including the alleged resolutions as referred to therein and to allow the petitioners to sit for the ensuing Preliminary Law Examination of the University of Calcutta and to take all steps incidental thereto including the receipt of Examination Fees and the issuance of admit cards to the petitioners. There is also a prayer for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned Memos including the alleged resolutions contained therein. There was also a prayer for interim order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the alleged resolutions contained in the Memos, Annexures 'a' and 'b' and also directing the University Authorities to allow the petitioners to sit for the ensuing Preliminary Law Examination of the University of Calcutta. ( 5 ) THIS application was moved on 12th May, 1982 on notice to the University. On hearing both the learned Advocates for the parties a direction was given to the respondent No. 1, the Calcutta University for shifting the date of examination which was scheduled to be held on 9th June, 1982 to a date not earlier than 14 days from the date originally fixed according to the convenience of the respondent No. 1 and the application was fixed for hearing on 24th May, 1982. ( 6 ) ON 24th May, 1982, after hearing the learned Advocates for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the Calcutta University, the respondents were directed to bring the necessary documents on 31st May, 1982 before this Court, namely, the proceedings of the Sub-committee meetings held on 2. 7. 79 and 11. 7. 79. It was further directed to disclose whether the regulations that were framed and after the same being redrafted were placed before the Calcutta University Council at its meeting dated 31st August, 1979. 7. 79 and 11. 7. 79. It was further directed to disclose whether the regulations that were framed and after the same being redrafted were placed before the Calcutta University Council at its meeting dated 31st August, 1979. The approved draft regulations were also directed to be produced before this Court. The University Authorities were directed to state when those regulations were adopted at the meeting of the Calcutta University Council. ( 7 ) AN affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, the Calcutta University, sworn by Sri Pradip Kumar Mukherjee, Registrar of the Calcutta University and Ex-officio Secretary of the Calcutta University Council on 25th May, 1982. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit it has been submitted that the writ application is not maintainable and as such it should be dismissed in limine with costs on the ground that the right to education is not a fundamental right and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to make this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been further submitted that the claims as alleged by the petitioners in their application are directly concerned with the actions of the authorities of the colleges to which they belong as alleged and as such, those colleges being private bodies the application is not maintainable in this writ jurisdiction. It has been stated that the revised regulations and syllabuses were approved by the Calcutta University Council at its meetings dated 31st August, 1979 and 7th December, 1979 and the same were duly notified, disclosed and circulated to all the colleges by a Notification bearing No. CSR/29/79 dated 3. 1. 1980. It has been further submitted that the said revised regulations and syllabuses were made and approved by the Calcutta University Council in accordance with the relevant rules and as such this application should be dismissed. It has been further submitted that the petitioners cannot join in one application as their claims are different and on that ground their application is not maintainable. It has been stated that the Academic Council has been empowered under section 25 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 to make regulations regarding the courses of study and the division of subjects etc. It has been stated that the Academic Council has been empowered under section 25 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 to make regulations regarding the courses of study and the division of subjects etc. after obtaining and considering the recommendations of the Councils for Post-Graduate and Under-Graduate Studies in this regard and also to make Regulations regarding the conditions under which the students may be admitted to the different courses of studies and examinations held by the University. It has been stated further that under section 28 of the said Act there shall be such Councils of Post-Graduate Studies as may be prescribed by the Regulations and they will exercise such powers as are specified therein. It has been stated in paragraph 7 that after the enactment of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 all such powers, duties and functions of the Academic Council and also Councils for Post-Graduate Studies have been vested with the Calcutta University Council and the Calcutta University Council is duly authorized and empowered under the provisions of the said Act of 1978 to appoint and/or to constitute Sub-committee or such other Committees as it may think fit and proper to get due performance and to make due discharge of its duties and responsibilities. It has been stated in paragraph 8 that in due compliance of the direction the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law appointed by the Calcutta University Council, Dr. M. L. Upadhyay and Prof. P. P. Modak prepared a draft regulation for admission in LL. B. Course of Studies whereby it was suggested, inter alia, that every candidate for Degree of Bachelor of Law shall satisfy the following conditions, one of the conditions being that a student having passed the examination for the Bachelor of Arts or Science or Commerce or Medicine or Engineering or an equivalent examination with Honours or in Pass course with at least 40% marks in the aggregate or has obtained a Master Degree in any discipline or equivalent, will be entitled to be admitted in the Preliminary Law Class. It has been stated in paragraph 10 that the revised regulations and syllabuses so drafted by the said Sub-committee at its meetings held on 2. 7. 79 and 11. 7. 70 under the direction from the Calcutta University Council were placed at the meeting of the Calcutta University Council held on 31. 8. 79. It has been stated in paragraph 10 that the revised regulations and syllabuses so drafted by the said Sub-committee at its meetings held on 2. 7. 79 and 11. 7. 70 under the direction from the Calcutta University Council were placed at the meeting of the Calcutta University Council held on 31. 8. 79. The Council considered the proceedings of the meeting of the Sub-committee, accepted the same, and decided to frame the said regulations with some modifications and/or alterations. In doing such modification and/or alteration the Council raised the aggregate marks required for admission to 45% from 40% as suggested by the Sub-committee. The resolution of the Calcutta University Council adopted in its meeting dated 31. 8. 79 is annexed as Annexure 'a' to the affidavit-in-opposition. The said regulations were intimated by the Registrar, Calcutta University to the Principals of the Surendra Nath College, the Jogesh Chandra Chowdhury College of Law, the South Calcutta Girls' College of Law etc. It has been stated that the representations of the Students' Union were placed before the Calcutta University Council at its meeting held on 7. 12. 79 with a note from the Principal, University College of Law who was the Chairman of the Sub-committee. After consideration of the said representations of the Students' Union, the Council reconsidered its decision made in its meeting dated 31. 8. 79 and reduced the limit of aggregate marks from 45% to 40%. This was annexed as Annexure 'c' to the petition. In paragraph 25 it has been stated that the Sub-committee of Post-Graduate Studies in Law prepared the revised regulations under appointment and directions of the Calcutta University Council and the Calcutta University Council being the appropriate statutory body has finally made and/or decided to frame the regulations and the regulations so made, have legal force and the said regulations were duly notified. It has, therefore, been submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to appear at the ensuing Preliminary LL. B. Examination as they did not conform to the revised regulations framed by the University. ( 8 ) AN affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. It has, therefore, been submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to appear at the ensuing Preliminary LL. B. Examination as they did not conform to the revised regulations framed by the University. ( 8 ) AN affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. In paragraph 13 of the said affidavit it has been submitted that the alleged Sub-committee of Post-Graduate Studies in Law with the Principal, Calcutta University Law College as its Chairman had no authority, competence or jurisdiction in respect of the framing of the regulations for the Course of Study for LL. B. Degree. It has been further stated that the said Sub-committee was not validly appointed by the Calcutta University Council. The Calcutta University Council did not delegate any of its powers to the said Sub-committee. The Chancellor of the Calcutta University did not give his approval to such delegation, even if there be any. It has been further submitted that there was no direction of the Calcutta University Council for framing such regulations nor the same were approved as alleged. It has been further submitted that there could not be any legal or valid 'direction' or 'approval' authorizing the said Sub-committee to act in the manner as it did, not in the matter of framing the said regulations. It has been stated that the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law had no jurisdiction nor any authority to frame any draft regulations for admission in LL. B. Course of Studies and any draft regulations prepared by the said Sub-committee had no existence in the eye of law and the same could not be taken into consideration by the Calcutta University Council. It has been further submitted that the Calcutta University Council on 31. 8. 79 did not make any change with regard to the aforesaid draft clause and yet the clause in the Notification date 3rd January, 1980 differs significantly from the draft. There is nothing to show how and by whom and under what authority such changes were brought about. It has been submitted that the Calcutta University Council never framed or made the resolutions finally and as such the said regulations under the preparation with modification cannot be enforced against the petitioners nor can the same be treated as valid or legal regulations under the Calcutta University Act, 1966. It has been submitted that the Calcutta University Council never framed or made the resolutions finally and as such the said regulations under the preparation with modification cannot be enforced against the petitioners nor can the same be treated as valid or legal regulations under the Calcutta University Act, 1966. I further state that it does not appear that the modifications directed by the Calcutta University Council were ever carried into effect and the draft regulations along with the modifications were ever placed before the Calcutta University Council and the same were considered and passed by the Council. In particular, I state that section 1 after redrafting and the scratch system after its introduction were not placed before the Calcutta University Council and considered and approved by it as required by the relevant provisions of law. I state that the so-called regulations cannot be treated as regulations as these were not framed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. ( 9 ) A supplementary affidavit by Shri Pratip Kumar Mukherjee, Registrar, Calcutta University on behalf of the respondent No. 1 was filed. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the Post-Graduate Studies in Law in its meeting dated 21. 11. 78 authorised Shri P. P. Modak and Dr. M. L. Upadhyay to finalise the work relating to the drafting of revised regulations and syllabuses. The copy of the relevant resolutions of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law has been annexed as Annexure 'a' to the supplementary affidavit. It has also been stated that the said proceedings though did not mention the words ?regulations? along with syllabus it was taken that it was implied by necessary implications. This will be evident from the letter of Dr. M. L. Upadhyay, Principal Calcutta University College of Law, annexed as Annexure 'b' to the supplementary affidavit. It has been further stated that on 14th February, 1978 while adopting the Rules of business for the conduct of its meeting appointed, inter alia, the Board of Post-Graduate Studies in Law to do and perform its activities in the respective fields of education. It has been further submitted that the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law redrafted the Regulations as directed by the Council and placed the same at the meeting of the Council held on 6. 11. 79 when the Council was pleased to make the resolution dated 16. 11. It has been further submitted that the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law redrafted the Regulations as directed by the Council and placed the same at the meeting of the Council held on 6. 11. 79 when the Council was pleased to make the resolution dated 16. 11. 79 confirming its earlier Resolution dated 31. 8. 79. The Resolution of the meeting of the Council dated 16. 11. 79 has been annexed as Annexure 'e' to the supplementary affidavit. It has been stated that the revised Regulations were again placed before the Council for its reconsideration in view of the representation of the Students' Union. The Council reconsidered its decision and reduced the aggregate of marks obtained in last degree Examination from 45% to 40% in Pass Course. It has been further stated that the revised Regulations approved by the Calcutta University Council on 31. 8. 79 and 7. 12. 79 were notified for general information by the Calcutta University. ( 10 ) MR. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that after the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978, all the members of the Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic Council, the Faculties, the Council for Post-Graduate Studies, the Council for Under-Graduate Studies, the Boards of Studies, the Finance Committee and all other authorities established under the Statute, excepting the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellors for Academic Affairs and for Business Affairs and Finance shall vacate their respective offices and the powers and duties of all these authorities are to be exercised by the Council known as the Calcutta University Council from the date of enforcement of this Act, that is from 12th January, 1978. The Calcutta University Council, is therefore, alone competent to frame the regulations, both draft and final, and no other authority has any competence in this respect. It has been next contended that there has been no appointment of any Committee or Sub-committee by the Calcutta University Council under section 4 (d) of the said Act as admitted in the affidavit-in-opposition and the supplementary affidavit and there has been in fact no delegation of its power to frame regulations by the Calcutta University Council to any such Sub-committee. It has been further submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that the resolution of the Calcutta University Council dated 14. 2. It has been further submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that the resolution of the Calcutta University Council dated 14. 2. 78 annexed as Annexure 'd' to the supplementary affidavit shows that some persons have been nominated to the Board of Post-Graduate Studies in Law by the Calcutta University Council at a time when the Board has been superseded by the said Act. It has been submitted further that this Board of Post-Graduate Studies in Law has not been delegated any power by the Calcutta University Council to frame regulations. It has been further submitted that under the 1966 Act the Board has no jurisdiction in the matter of framing regulations. This will be evident from the Regulations 7 and 12 of the Calcutta University First Regulations, 1977. It has been submitted that the Calcutta University Council has not delegated any of its power to Prof. Modok or to Dr. Upadhyay as will be evident from Item No. 7 of the resolutions of the Sub-Committee which have been annexed as Annexure 'a' to the supplementary affidavit and as such the draft of the regulations made by them is also illegal and without jurisdiction. The resolution of the Council dated 31. 8. 79, it has been submitted, is also illegal and invalid being not according to the provisions of section 54 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966, and as such, the same cannot be taken as revising the earlier regulations prevalent for admitting students to the Preliminary Law Class. It has been submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that the resolution of the Calcutta University Council on 31. 8. 79 merely directed for modification and for redrafting section 1 of the same. There is nothing to show that the Sub-committee redrafted section 1 and the said redrafted regulations were placed for the approval of the Calcutta University Council which, it is alleged, has ultimately approved the same. Mukherjee that the resolution of the Calcutta University Council on 31. 8. 79 merely directed for modification and for redrafting section 1 of the same. There is nothing to show that the Sub-committee redrafted section 1 and the said redrafted regulations were placed for the approval of the Calcutta University Council which, it is alleged, has ultimately approved the same. It has, therefore, been submitted that the redrafted section 11 having not been placed before the meeting of the Council and having not been approved by the members of the Calcutta University Council the same has got no legal force and the refusal of the University Authorities to supply forms to the petitioners for appearing at the ensuing Preliminary Law Examination and also the refusal to issue admit cards to the petitioners are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and as such, it has been submitted that these revised regulations are liable to be cancelled and set aside being wholly unauthorized and not made in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 read with section 54 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. ( 11 ) THE Additional Advocate General, Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, has joined issues and submitted, in the first place, that it was not necessary to consider whether there was a draft prepared by the Sub-committee properly or not. The Calcutta University Academic Council is empowered to consider the draft regulations and as it has considered the draft regulations which were placed before it and approved the same. These draft regulations cannot be questioned on the ground that the draft regulations were not made by the Sub-committee as it was not constituted by the Calcutta University Council in accordance with the provisions of the section 4 (d) of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978. It has been submitted that the Calcutta University Council having been given the power to frame rules and regulations the Council can act in any manner it likes. It has been further submitted that the draft revised regulations for Preliminary Intermediate and Final LL. B. Courses of Studies after the redrafting of section 1 was placed before the Calcutta University Council and it approved the same at its meeting dated 31. 8. 79. It has been further submitted by Mr. It has been further submitted that the draft revised regulations for Preliminary Intermediate and Final LL. B. Courses of Studies after the redrafting of section 1 was placed before the Calcutta University Council and it approved the same at its meeting dated 31. 8. 79. It has been further submitted by Mr. Gupta that it will be clear from the proceedings of that meeting where the words as modified to be approved? were used. It has, therefore, been submitted that the revised regulations cannot be questioned as not properly framed and approved by the Calcutta University Council. It has been next submitted that the revised regulations even if they are found to be not made in accordance with the provisions of the Act cannot be struck down in this writ application as the members of the Calcutta University Council which is an independent body have not been impleaded in this application. In support of this submission, Mr. Gupta has cited some decisions at the Bar. It has been submitted further that there is no procedure prescribed or laid down in section 54 of the said Act for framing of regulations by the Calcutta University Council. It has been further submitted that the revised regulations were duly notified and also intimated to the authorities of these colleges and as such the college authorities having not followed the same in admitting the students, the petitioners cannot get any relief. It has been lastly contended by Mr. Gupta that the autonomy of the Calcutta University Council should not be interfered with and in support of his submission some decisions have been referred to. ( 12 ) BEFORE considering the merits of the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties it is apposite to consider the legal position. The Calcutta University Act, 1966 (West Bengal Act II of 1966), was enacted in order to provide for organization of the University of Calcutta and for certain matters incidental thereto and connected therewith. ( 12 ) BEFORE considering the merits of the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties it is apposite to consider the legal position. The Calcutta University Act, 1966 (West Bengal Act II of 1966), was enacted in order to provide for organization of the University of Calcutta and for certain matters incidental thereto and connected therewith. Section 3 of the said Act has specifically provided that the Calcutta University comprising of the first Chancellor and the first Vice-Chancellor of the University and the first members of the Senate, the Syndicate and the Academic Council and all persons who may hereafter before such officers or members, so long as they continue to hold such office or membership, shall constitute a body corporate by the name of the University of Calcutta, and the University shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and shall sue and be sued by the name of the University of Calcutta. Section 18 mentions the various authorities of the University and the Academic Council has been specified as one of the such authorities therein. Section 25 of the said Act provides for the powers and duties of the Academic Council. Clause 9 of sub-section (2) of section 25 confers on the Academic Council power to make regulations regarding the courses of studies etc. after considering and obtaining the recommendations of the Councils for Post-Graduate and Under-Graduate Studies. Clause 11 of the said sub-section also confers powers on the Academic Council to make Regulations regarding the conduct of examinations held by the University and the conditions under which students may be admitted to the different courses of studies and examination held by the University. Section 28 lays down that there shall be such councils for Post-Graduate Studies as may be prescribed by Regulations Sub-section (2) of the said section further provides that every Council for Post-Graduate Studies shall have general responsibility for such academic affairs of the departments concerned as entrance requirements, curricula, instructions, discipline, student activities etc. and similar other matters which effect only the Council. Section 30 lays down that there shall be Board of Studies attached to every Council for Post-Graduate or Under-Graduate Studies. The constitution of the Board of Studies shall be prescribed by Statutes and the powers and functions of the Boards shall be prescribed by Regulations. Section 54 lays down the manner of making Regulations by the Academic Council. Section 30 lays down that there shall be Board of Studies attached to every Council for Post-Graduate or Under-Graduate Studies. The constitution of the Board of Studies shall be prescribed by Statutes and the powers and functions of the Boards shall be prescribed by Regulations. Section 54 lays down the manner of making Regulations by the Academic Council. It provides that the Council shall take into consideration drafts of Regulations, consistent with this Act and the Statutes and the Ordinance to carry out the purposes thereof after notice of the proposed Regulation has been given to the members of the Academic Council at least three weeks in advance of the date fixed for consideration of the same by the Academic Council, provided, that in a matter which, in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, is of an emergent nature, the Vice-Chancellor may direct a shorter notice. Other provisions of the aforesaid section being not relevant for our present purpose are not mentioned herein. ( 13 ) REGULATIONS 7 and 12 of the Calcutta University First Regulations, 1966 which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are quoted hereinbelow: - ?regulation 7 : Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, the functions and duties of a Council for Post-Graduate Studies shall, in addition to those specified in sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 28, be. . . . . (a) to have general supervision over relevant Boards of Studies attached to the Council ; (b) to frame rules relating to courses of Post-Graduate Studies and the division of subjects in regard thereto and to recommend to the Academic Council the making of regulations in these matter ; regulation 12 : The Councils for Post-Graduate Studies specified in column 1 of the Table below shall have attached to them the Boards of Studies in the subject or subjects specific in the corresponding entries in column II of that table : provided that a Board may, if the Council concerned so directs, deal with two or more such subjects. THE TABLE councils for Post-Graduate Studies subjects i II (7) Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Law ; law. ? ( 14 ) THE Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 (West Bengal Act VII of 1978), came into force on 12th January, 1978. THE TABLE councils for Post-Graduate Studies subjects i II (7) Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Law ; law. ? ( 14 ) THE Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 (West Bengal Act VII of 1978), came into force on 12th January, 1978. Section 3 of the said Act declares that the University of Calcutta shall, with effect from the date of coming into force of the Act and for a period of one year thereafter stand superseded. This period of supersession has further been extended by the State Government by subsequent notification in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of the said section. Section 4 of the said Act specifies the consequences of supersession. Sub-section (a) provides that all the members of the Senate, Syndicate, Academic Council, Faculties, Council for Post-Graduate Studies etc. shall vacate their respective offices. Sub-Section (b) lays down that the powers and duties assigned to the Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic Council and all other authorities of the University under the Act or any Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations or Rules made thereunder shall be exercised by the Council to be known as the Calcutta University Council in the manner provided. Clause (d) further provides that the Calcutta University Council shall carry on the functions of the various authorities of the University such as Academic Council, Syndicate, Senate etc. established under the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations. The Council has also been empowered to constitute such body or bodies with the approval of the Chancellor and it may delegate any of its powers to such body or bodies. Clause (f) further provides that all the provisions of the Act, Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations or Rules made thereunder shall, if in conflict with the provisions of this Act stand modified. Section 8 lays down that nothing in this Act shall be construed as effecting or implying in any way the dissolution of the University as a body corporate as described in section 3 of the Act. ( 15 ) THE vital issue that requires to be decided in this application is whether the revised regulations which are claimed to have been framed by the Calcutta University Council at its meetings held on 31st August, 1979 and 7th December, 1979 as mentioned in Annexures A and ?c? to the affidavit-in-opposition have been duly framed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. to the affidavit-in-opposition have been duly framed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there was no direction of the Calcutta University Council to the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law for preparing the revised regulations for admission in LL. B. Course of Studies for the session 1979-80 and thereafter. It has been further submitted that after the enforcement of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978, all the authorities mentioned in section 18 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 stood superseded and they were non-est in the eye of law. There is no averment made in the affidavit-in-opposition or in the supplementary affidavit that the Calcutta University Council by virtue of its power under section 4 (d) proviso of the Calcutta University Council (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 constituted and/or appointed any Sub-committee and with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor it had delegated any of its powers to such Sub-committee. It has therefore been submitted that the revised regulations prescribing norms for admission of students to the LL. B. Course to be followed by all the colleges for the session 1979-80 and thereafter has not any legal force and the same cannot be enforced. It has also been submitted that pursuant to the proceedings adopted at a meeting of the Calcutta University Council on 31. 8. 1979 directing the Sub-committee to redraft section 1. The said redraft was not made by the Sub-committee nor it was ever placed before the Calcutta University Council. The Calcutta University Council never had the opportunity of considering the same or approving the same. This will be evident from the agenda of the meeting dated 16th November, 1979. It has therefore been submitted that the revised regulations which are tried to be enforced by the Calcutta University Authorities by not allowing the petitioners to fill up the forms for appearing at the ensuing LL. B Examination as well as by not issuing the admit cards are wholly illegal and unwarranted and without jurisdiction. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has been stated in paragraph 8 that in compliance with about:blank the direction of the Calcutta University Council the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law appointed by the Calcutta University Council prepared a draft resolution for admission to the LL. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has been stated in paragraph 8 that in compliance with about:blank the direction of the Calcutta University Council the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law appointed by the Calcutta University Council prepared a draft resolution for admission to the LL. B. Course of Studies wherein it was suggested, inter alia, that every candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Law shall satisfy the following conditions : (1) he must have passed the examination for Bachelor of Arts, Science, Commerce, Medicine or Engineering or an equivalent examination with Honours or in Pass Course with at least 40% marks in the aggregate. It was further stated in paragraph 10 of the said affidavit that the said revised regulations and syllabuses were drafted by the Sub-committee under the direction from the Calcutta University Council and the said regulations were placed at the meeting of the Calcutta University Council held on 31. 8. 79. The Council considered the proceedings of the meetings of the Sub-committee, accepted the same and decided to frame the regulations with some modifications and alterations. In doing such modifications and/or alterations the Council raised the aggregate of marks required for admission to 45% from 40% as suggested by the Sub-committee. In paragraph 25 it has been further averred that the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law only prepared the revised regulations under appointment and direction of the Calcutta University Council being the appropriate statutory body as finally made and/or decided to frame the regulations and the regulations so made have legal force and the said regulations were duly notified. The statements in paragraphs 8 and 10 were affirmed by the Registrar, Calcutta University, Sri Pratip Kumar Mukherjee on 24th May, 1982 as true to his information derived from the records of the Calcutta University, respondent No. 1, and the statements made in paragraph 25 of the said affidavit were affirmed as true to his knowledge. On 24th of May, 1982 after hearing the learned Advocates for all the parties a direction was given to the respondent No. 1 for the production of the following document before this Court on the next date of hearing : the direction of the Calcutta University Council to the Sub-committee for preparing a draft regulations for admission of students to the Preliminary LL. B. Course etc. It appears, however, that on 31. 5. B. Course etc. It appears, however, that on 31. 5. 1982, that is, the day when the case was taken up for hearing, correction was made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition by striking out the words ?the Calcutta University Council? and also inserting some words. A supplementary affidavit has also been affirmed by the Registrar, Calcutta University on 31st May, 1982. In paragraph 4 (a) of the said supplementary affidavit it has been stated that the Post-Graduate Studies in Law in its meeting dated 21. 11. 78 authorised Prof. P. P. Modak and Dr. M. L. Upadhyay to finalise the work relating to drafting of revised regulations and syllabus. A copy of the said resolution has been annexed as Annexure 'a' to the supplementary affidavit. A letter from Dr. M. L. Upadhyay who was the Chairman of the said Sub-committee and Principal of the Calcutta University College of Law has also been annexed as Annexure 'b' to the supplementary affidavit. ( 16 ) IT has been further stated in the said paragraph 4 (d) of the said supplementary affidavit as follows: - post-Graduate Sub-committee in Law redrafted the Regulations as directed by the Council and placed before the Council in its meeting held on 16. 11. 79 confirming its earlier resolution dated 31. 8. 79. ? in sub-paragraph (f) of the said affidavit it has been further stated that the revised regulations were approved by the Calcutta University Council on 31. 8. 79 and 7. 12. 79 and this was notified for general information by the Calcutta University by a Notification dated 3. 1. 80. The above statements have been affirmed as true to the information derived from the records including the letters addressed to Mr. Sudhendu Mukherjee, Law Officer, Calcutta University, by Dr. M. L. Upadhyay, Chairman, Post-Graduate Sub-committee in Law and Principal University College of Law. It appears that the stand was taken by the Calcutta University in its affidavit-in-opposition that at the direction of the Calcutta University Council the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law appointed by the Calcutta University Council prepared the draft regulations for admission in LL. B. Course of Studies. After correction of the said statements in paragraph 8 on 31. 5. B. Course of Studies. After correction of the said statements in paragraph 8 on 31. 5. 82 the stand taken by the Calcutta University, respondent No. 1, as appears from the said paragraph, is that in compliance of the direction of the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law appointed by the Calcutta University Council Dr. Upadhyay and Prof. P. P. Modak prepared draft regulations for admission in LL. B. Course of Studies. Therefore according to the latest stand the draft was prepared not by the Sub-committee but by Dr. M. L. Upadhyay and Prof. P. P. Modak appointed by the Sub-committee at its meeting held on 21st November, 1978. If the latest stand taken by the respondent No. 1 is accepted then it is clear and apparent from the resolution adopted at a meeting of the Sub-committee for the Post-Graduate Studies in Law at its meeting held on 21st November, 1978 as recorded in Item No. 7 does not at all show that Prof. P. P. Modak and Dr. M. L. Upadhyay were entrusted with the work of preparing and/or making the draft regulations for admission in LL. B. Course of Studies. The resolution merely requested them ?to finalise the work relating to revision of LL. B. Syllabus and submit the revised syllabus for consideration of the Sub-committee of Post-Graduate Studies in Law in its next meeting. ? Therefore, the draft regulations regarding the norms to be followed for admission of students in the LL. B. Course that has been framed by Prof. P. P. Modak and Dr. M. L. Upadhyay are thoroughly unauthorized and dehors the provisions of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 inasmuch as firstly, they were not authorized by the Sub-committee to prepare the draft regulations for admission in LL. B. Course of Studies and secondly, after the supersession of all the authorities of the University by section 3 of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 the Sub-committee for the Post-Graduate Studies in Law has no existence in the eye of law and is therefore non-est. The Sub-committee have authorized some persons of whom Dr. M. L. Upadhyay claims to be a member and also the Chairman of the Sub-committee to frame the draft regulations. Such authorization does not give any legal sanction to the draft regulations prepared by these two gentlemen, namely, Prof. P. P. Modak and Dr. The Sub-committee have authorized some persons of whom Dr. M. L. Upadhyay claims to be a member and also the Chairman of the Sub-committee to frame the draft regulations. Such authorization does not give any legal sanction to the draft regulations prepared by these two gentlemen, namely, Prof. P. P. Modak and Dr. M. L. Upadhyay, Principal, Calcutta University Law College. Apart from the fact that they were not authorized by the Sub-committee to frame the draft regulations for admission in the LL. B. Course of Studies, if on the other hand that was taken firstly by the respondent No. 1 in the affidavit-in-opposition sworn on 24th May, 1981 is taken into consideration, even then, there is nothing to show and the respondent No. 1 has signally failed to show though specifically directed by this Court, that any direction was given by the respondent No. 1 to the Sub-committee of Post-Graduate Studies in Law to frame the draft regulations. Secondly, there is no averment either in the affidavit-in-opposition or in the supplementary affidavit sworn on behalf of the respondent No. 1 by one of the members and Secretary of the Calcutta University Council, namely, the Registrar, Calcutta University, Mr. Pratip Kr. Mukherjee that the Calcutta University Council has ever constituted and/or appointed the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law after the enforcement of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978. Apart from the fact that no such order or resolution of the Council constituting and/or appointing with the approval of the Chancellor the said Sub-committee for the Post-Graduate Studies in Law has been produced before this Court in support of this stand taken by the University. Moreover, though in paragraph 8 in order to get over the difficulty of producing the direction of the Calcutta University Council before this Court as contained in the order dated 24th May, 1982 the averments in paragraph 8 was corrected on 31. 5. 82, still then, both in paragraphs 10 and 25 there are specific averments that the draft revised regulations were made by the Sub-committee under the direction of the Calcutta University Council and these statements have been affirmed as not only true to the information derived from the records of the respondents but also true to his knowledge by the Registrar of Calcutta University who is one of the members and Secretary of the Calcutta University Council. Therefore, this contradictory stand taken by the Calcutta University clearly goes to show that there was no Sub-committee appointed by the Calcutta University Council nor was there any direction by the Calcutta University to the Sub-committee to frame the draft regulations for admission to LL. B. Course of Studies in the session 1979-80 and thereafter to be followed by all the Law Colleges under the Calcutta University. Moreover, even assuming for the argument's sake that the draft regulations were framed by the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law at its meeting dated 11th July, 1979 and the same was placed at the meeting of the Calcutta University Council on 31. 8. 79 for approval, the Calcutta University Council adopted a resolution in Item No. 19 resolving that the draft revised regulations and syllabuses for Preliminary, Intermediate and Final LL. B. Course of Studies as modified be approved. There was a short note : (1) redraft section 1 and other modifications, mentioned therein. ( 17 ) IT has been urged strenuously by Mr. Gupta, the learned Additional Advocate General that the redraft was made pursuant to the said resolution and it was placed at the meeting of the Council on that very day, that is, on 31. 8. 79, and the same was modified by the Calcutta University Council. These drafts of section 1, it has been urged, are in handwriting in two loose sheets of paper attached after the proceedings of draft revised regulations and syllabuses of the Sub-committee. It has therefore been submitted that as the Calcutta University Council approved the draft of section 1, the draft revised regulations regarding the admission of students to LL. B. Course are not invalid and inoperative but are perfectly valid and legal. It is pertinent to refer in this connection to the averments made in paragraph 4 (d) of the supplementary affidavit sworn on 31. 5. 82. It has been stated therein that the Post-Graduate Sub-committee in Law redrafted regulations as directed by the Council and placed before the Council at its meeting held on 16. 11. 79 when the Council was placed to confirm its resolution dated 31. 8. 79. Therefore, the submission that have been made by Mr. Gupta are not sustainable in view of the express statements made in paragraph 4 (d) of the supplementary affidavit. 11. 79 when the Council was placed to confirm its resolution dated 31. 8. 79. Therefore, the submission that have been made by Mr. Gupta are not sustainable in view of the express statements made in paragraph 4 (d) of the supplementary affidavit. The next question that requires consideration is whether this redrafted regulations made by the Post-Graduate Sub-committee in Law in accordance with the direction of the Council were in fact placed before the meeting of the Council held on 16. 11. 79 and the said Council whether had in fact approved the same. At the direction of the Court the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 produced before this Court the agenda of the meeting of the Calcutta University Council dated 9. 11. 79. Item No. 1 of the agenda is couched in the following language ?resolutions of the Calcutta University Council dated 31. 8. 79, 14. 9. 79 and 21. 8. 79. ? It is therefore clear and apparent that the redrafted regulations were not placed before the Calcutta University Council and the same were not considered by the Council at its meeting dated 16. 11. 79 nor the same was approved by the Council. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of section 4, the Calcutta University Council is the only authority to frame revised regulations regarding admission of students to LL. B. Courses. The revised regulations prepared and subsequently redrafted by the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law in accordance with the directions of the Calcutta University Council at its meeting held on 31. 8. 79 having been not placed before the Calcutta University Council and the same being not approved by the Council cannot be considered to be valid regulations framed under section 4 of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 read with section 54 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 which being not inconsistent with the provisions of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act is in force. These regulations, therefore, cannot be enforced and on the basis of these draft regulations, the petitioners who have been duly admitted in the LL. B. Course of Studies and have duly prosecuted the course of studies for the prescribed period cannot be prevented from the filling up the necessary forms and depositing the necessary examination fees for appearing at the ensuing LL. B. examinations to be held on June, 1982. B. Course of Studies and have duly prosecuted the course of studies for the prescribed period cannot be prevented from the filling up the necessary forms and depositing the necessary examination fees for appearing at the ensuing LL. B. examinations to be held on June, 1982. The University Authorities cannot, under any circumstances, withhold the issue of the admit cards to these petitioners and also others who have been duly admitted into the different Law Colleges and similarly prosecuted the Course of Studies for appearing at the Preliminary LL. B. Examination to be held by the Calcutta University in June, 1982. ( 18 ) IT is needless to consider the other parts of the submission made by Mr. Saktinath Mukehrjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law being not appointed and/or constituted with the approval of the Chancellor and the Calcutta University Council having not delegated any such powers to a body or bodies as required under section 4 (d) of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, the draft regulations even if made by such Sub-committee and approved by the Calcutta University Council cannot have any legal force on the ground that, as I have stated already, there is no averment that the said Sub-committee was constituted and/or appointed by the Calcutta University Council with the approval of the Chancellor and that the Council had delegated any of its powers to such a committee. It is pertinent to consider in this connection the argument that has been advanced on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the Calcutta University Council is competent to consider any draft regulations whether it comes from a legitimate body or from any other source and as soon as the Council after considering the draft of the said regulations approves it, it becomes valid and effective regulations under the provisions of section 54 of the Act. The argument, in my opinion, has no legs to stand upon for the simple reason that in view of the provisions of section 4 (b) of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978, the Calcutta University Council has been empowered to exercise all the powers formally exercised by the authorities of the University under the Calcutta University Act, 1966, and all other authorities established under the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations framed thereunder in the manner provided. In other words, the powers of the authorities as specified in the 1966 Act and the Regulations and Ordinances framed thereunder are to be exercised by the Calcutta University Council in accordance with the provisions of the 1966 Act, Statutes and Regulations framed thereunder in so far as they are not in conflict with the provisions of this Act. Under the Calcutta University Act, 1966, the Academic Council by section 28 of the said Act was empowered to make regulations regarding the courses of studies and also the conditions under which the students may be admitted into different courses of studies after considering the recommendations of the Council for the Post-Graduate Studies. Regulations 7 (b) framed under the said Act empowers the Council for the Post-Graduate Studies to frame Rules relating to the Courses of the Post-Graduate Studies etc. and to recommend to the Academic Council the making the regulations in this matter. Regulation 12 specifies the Council for Post-Graduate Studies in column No. 1 of the Table. Item No. 7 of the Table mentions the Council for Post-Graduate Studies in Law. Therefore, the Council for the Post-Graduate Studies in Law is competent to make and approve regulations and to submit them to the Calcutta University Council for consideration and the Calcutta University Council has to conform to the procedure prescribed in section 54 of the said Act while framing the regulations. The argument of the learned Additional Advocate General is, in my opinion, not sustainable in law for two reasons : firstly, the draft regulations for admission in LL. B. Courses of Studies was not prepared by the Sub-committee which was not appointed by the Calcutta University Council as required under section 4 (d) of the Act with the approval of the Chancellor and secondly, the Sub-committee of the Post-Graduate Studies in Law was not delegated by the Council any of its powers to make such draft regulations. In such circumstances the draft regulations prepared by the Sub-committee cannot be taken into consideration by the Calcutta University Council. In such circumstances the draft regulations prepared by the Sub-committee cannot be taken into consideration by the Calcutta University Council. Secondly, the provisions of section 54 (1) require that before the members of the Calcutta University Council consider the draft regulations copies of the regulations are to be supplied to the members of the Council at least three weeks in advance of the commencement of the meeting except when the Vice-Chancellor in a case of urgency may direct a shorter notice to be given. In this case there is no such direction of the Vice-Chancellor for giving a shorter notice for holding a meeting of the Calcutta University Council and there was no compliance of this mandatory provisions of section 54 inasmuch as it appears that the draft revised regulations and syllabi made by the Sub-committee were not circulated to the members of the Calcutta University Council three weeks before the date of the meeting and the meeting was convened on 27th August, 1979 as evident from the notice of the meeting produced before this Court. It is also evident from the notice of the meeting dated 10. 11. 79 issued by the Registrar that the meeting of the Calcutta University Council was convened on 16. 11. 79. In none of the meetings, it is clear, the requirements of section 54 have been complied with. Therefore the regulations having not been made in the manner and mode as prescribed in section 54 of the 1966 Act and also the draft regulations being made by the Sub-committee not authorized under the Act and not appointed in the manner provided by the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 the draft regulations cannot have any legal force. Therefore the regulations having not been made in the manner and mode as prescribed in section 54 of the 1966 Act and also the draft regulations being made by the Sub-committee not authorized under the Act and not appointed in the manner provided by the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 the draft regulations cannot have any legal force. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that section 54 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 does not lay down any procedure for framing regulations by the Academic Council and as such the revised regulations that have been approved by the Calcutta University Council at its meetings dated 31st August 79 and 7th December, 1979 cannot be assailed as invalid and illegal for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure as provided in section 54 of the Act cannot be sustained inasmuch as section 54 of the Act undoubtedly lays down a procedure for serving the copy of the draft regulations on the members of the Calcutta University Council three weeks before the holding of the meeting of the Council for consideration of the same and this period of three weeks can only be reduced if in case of urgency the Vice-Chancellor of the University decides so and allows a shorter notice to be given for the meeting of the University Council. I have already held that the agenda of the meetings of the University Council dated 31st August, 1979, 16th November, 1979 and 7th December, 1979 do not show that the above mandatory requirements of the Calcutta University Council in consideration of the urgency have ever directed for issuance of a notice for shorter period for convening the meeting of the Calcutta University Council. This contention, therefore, is totally devoid of any merit and hence, it is overruled. ( 19 ) REFERENCE may be made in this contention to the decision of (1) Gujarat Electricity Board v. Girdharlal Motilal and Anr. , reported in AIR 1969 SC 267 at page 269, where it has been held by Hegde, J. that statutory power is to be exercised only in the manner provided in the Act and not in any other way. This has been relied on the cases of (2) State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, in AIR 1970 SC 2079 and (3) S. R. Tewari v. District Board, Agra, AIR 1964 SC 1680 . This has been relied on the cases of (2) State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, in AIR 1970 SC 2079 and (3) S. R. Tewari v. District Board, Agra, AIR 1964 SC 1680 . Similar observations have been made in the case of (4) Ramchandra Kashav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare and Ors. , AIR 1975 SC 915 at page 918, where it has been held : ?where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. ? In the case of (5) V. T. Khanzode and Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India and Anr. reported in AIR 1982 SC 917 at page 925 in paragraph 18. It has been observed : ?there is no doubt that a statutory corporation can do only such acts as are authorized by the statute creating it and that the powers of such a corporation cannot extend beyond what the statute provides expressly or by necessary implication. If an act is neither expressly or impliedly authorized by the statute which creates the corporation, it must be taken to be prohibited?. It is also opposite to refer in this connection the statement of law contained in paragraphs 26, 30 and 33 at pages 775 and 779 of Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. :corporations may be either statutory or non-statutory and a fundamental distinction exists between the powers and liabilities of the two classes. Statutory corporations have such rights and can do such acts only as are authorized directly or indirectly by the statutes creating them; non-statutory corporations, speaking generally, can do everything that an ordinary individual can do unless restricted directly or indirectly by statute. The powers of a corporation created by statute are limited and circumscribed by the statutes which regulate it, and extend no further than is expressly stated therein, or is necessarily and properly required for carrying into effect the purpose of its incorporation, or may be fairly regarded as incidental to, or consequential upon, these things which the legislature has authorized. What the statute does not expressly or impliedly authorize is to be taken to be prohibited. What the statute does not expressly or impliedly authorize is to be taken to be prohibited. ( 20 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the Calcutta University Council considered and approved the regulations redrafted by the Post-Graduate Sub-committee in Law as directed by the Calcutta University Council at its meeting held on 31. 8. 79 and a copy of the said proceeding has been annexed as Annexure 'e' to the supplementary affidavit sworn on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The agenda No. 2 of the meeting of the Calcutta University Council held on 16th November, 1979 is as follows: - resolutions of the Calcutta University Council dated 31. 8. 79, 14. 9. 79 and 21. 9. 79. ? ( 21 ) IT is evident from the resolution adopted at the meeting of the Council held on 16. 11. 79 that the Calcutta University Council confirmed the resolutions taken at its meeting dated 31. 8. 79 finding them to be correctly recorded. It has been urged by Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that this resolution which merely confirmed the proceedings of the earlier meeting of the Calcutta University Council merely signifies that the proceedings was correctly recorded. It does not give any legal sanction to the resolution or to its validity. In support of this submission Mr. Mukherjee cited certain decisions at the Bar. ( 22 ) MR. Gupta, on the other hand, submitted that the resolution adopted at a meeting of the Council on 16. 11. 79 has given a legal force to the said resolution. In Shackleton 'the Law and Practice of Meetings' (5th Edition) at page 112 it has been observed : ?decisions once arrived at do not need confirmation, and the practice adopted by some authorities of ?confirming? minutes has no legal significance. The word ?confirm? sometimes means ?verify?; it is commonly used in that sense at meetings of public bodies, who confirm the minutes of their last meeting, not meaning thereby that they give them force, but merely that they declare them accurate?. In the case of (6) Dr. Shabbir Fatima v. Alahabad University, reported in AIR 1966 All 45 , it has been observed that the word 'confirm' sometimes means ? In the case of (6) Dr. Shabbir Fatima v. Alahabad University, reported in AIR 1966 All 45 , it has been observed that the word 'confirm' sometimes means ? verify?; it is commonly used in that sense at meetings of public bodies which confirm the proceedings of their last meeting, not meaning there by that they give them force but merely that they declare them accurate. This Court in the case of (7) Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta and Anr. v. Asit Ranjan Majumder and Ors. , in Air 1962 Calcutta 530 at page 537 has held that 'confirmed' is a word, the natural meaning of which is more than 'indorsed' or 'verified'. It is equivalent to 'approved' ; and it is here to be construed in its natural sense, unless some manifest inconvenience is likely to arise from doing so. ?so, on a consideration of the above decisions the word 'confirmed' merely means correct recording of the proceedings. It also means the approval of the proceedings of the earlier meeting which have been correctly recorded. Therefore, the contention that confirmation gives a legal force and validity to the resolution which has been confirmed is totally unfounded and cannot be upheld. It has been urged by Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General that the Calcutta University Council is a body separate from and not a part of the Calcutta University and as such its impugned resolutions cannot be struck down without impleading the members of the Calcutta University Council even in a writ petition. It has been submitted further by Mr. Gupta that unlike the statutory authorities as specified in section 18 of the Independent authority which has been brought into being by the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 and section 4, sub-section (d), of the said West Bengal Act VII of 1978 clearly conferred upon the Calcutta University Council all the functions of the Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic Council, the Faculties, the Council for Post-Graduate Studies etc. and all other authorities established under the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made under the Calcutta University Act, 1966. The members of the Council being not impleaded in the instant application, the application is not maintainable and the relief asked for cannot be granted by this Court. and all other authorities established under the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made under the Calcutta University Act, 1966. The members of the Council being not impleaded in the instant application, the application is not maintainable and the relief asked for cannot be granted by this Court. Section 3 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 (West Bengal Act II of 1966) clearly provides that the First Vice-Chancellor of the University and the First Members of the Senate, Syndicate, Academic Council and all persons who become the officers or members of such statutory authorities shall constitute a body corporate in the name of the Calcutta University. It has also been provided therein that the Calcutta University shall sue and be sued by the name of the University of Calcutta and it shall have a common seal and perpetual succession. After the enforcement of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act referred to hereinbefore all the authorities of the University stood superseded under section 3 of the Act and by section 4, sub-section (d), of the said Act all the powers and functions of the statutory authorities such as Senate, Syndicate, Academic Council etc. have been vested with the sole authority, Calcutta University Council which is alone competent to exercise these powers and functions and can make regulations etc. Section 8 of the Act has also specifically laid down that the enforcement of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act does not in any way impair the position of the University as a body corporate as provided in section 3 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966. This means that the Calcutta University in spite of the coming into force of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978 will remain in existence as a body corporate as laid down in section 3 of the West Bengal Act II of 1966. This being the position the resolution that has been passed by the Calcutta University Council and which the Calcutta University has to enforce can be assailed and/or challenged by the petitioners who are undoubtedly the aggrieved persons being affected by the said resolution and this application cannot be rejected and the petitioners cannot be denied relief on the plea that the members of the University Council have not been impleaded as parties even though the Calcutta University has been impleaded as a party. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that this objection cannot succeed as the University has been impleaded as one of the respondents in this writ application. The decisions of (8) Khagendra Nath Sen v. University of Calcutta, in AIR 1974 Calcutta 187 and (9) University of Calcutta v. Khagendra Nath Sen, 79 Calcutta Weekly Notes 762 which held that the authorities mentioned in section 18 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 which from part of the Calcutta University and as such non-impleading those authorities while challenging their order do not expose the application to the risk and liability of having been dismissed applied also in the instant case inasmuch as the Calcutta University Council as has been observed hereinbefore is vested with all the powers and functions of these authorities. ( 23 ) IT has been lastly submitted by Mr. Gupta that the impugned regulations should not be quashed and set aside inasmuch as those regulations laid down the norms to be followed by the students intending to take admission in Preliminary Law Class and prosecute Studies in LL. B. Course. It has been contended that the Calcutta University Council has been vested with the jurisdiction to frame its own rules and regulations specifying the course and the norms or admission in LL. B. Course to be followed by the students. It has been submitted that the autonomy of the University should not be interfered with by this Court even if there is any irregularity in the framing of the regulations. This submission of Mr. Gupta, in my opinion, is without any substance particularly in the instant case inasmuch as the impugned resolutions of the Calcutta University Council dated 31. 8. 79, 16. 11. 79 and 7. 12. 79 approving the alleged revised regulations for admission to the LL. B. Course of Studies by the different Law Colleges under the Calcutta University have not been made by the Calcutta University Council in accordance with the mandatory procedure prescribed by section 54 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 read with section 4 (d) of the Calcutta University (Temporary Supersession) Act, 1978. These regulations, as has been observed already, are not legally framed and as such they cannot be termed as regulations validly made and hence they are not enforceable. These regulations, as has been observed already, are not legally framed and as such they cannot be termed as regulations validly made and hence they are not enforceable. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that in such a case this writ court is powerless to interfere and to quash and set aside the impugned regulations not made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Law. The observations made by the Supreme Court in (10) Principal, Patna College v. K. S. Raman, in Air 1966 SC 707 at page 713 paragraph 20 were made in connection with the issuance of an interim order. It has been observed that the High Court should normally be very slow to pass ex parte interim orders because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational institutions should normally be left to their decision, and the High Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it just do so in the interests of justice. This decision does not apply to the present case firstly because this Court did not issue any interim order ex parte against the University. Secondly, the Court is hearing the application on merits. Moreover, this case clearly lays down the principle that the High Court can interfere when it thinks that it should interfere in the interest of justice. In the instant case, the revised regulations purported to have been made by the Calcutta University Council and which are tried to be enforced are held to be not legally made and therefore they are not valid and as such it is well within the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in this matter for the interest of justice. The other decision of (11) V. S. Vishwavidyalaya and Anr. v. Dr. Rajkishore Tripathi and Anr. , in AIR 1977 SC 615 at page 619 paragraph 12 has no application to the instant case. In that case it was observed that in a matter touching either the discipline or the administration of internal affairs of a University, courts should be most reluctant to interfere. They should refuse to grant an injunction unless a fairly good prima facie case is made out for interfere with the internal affairs of the educational institutions. In that case it was observed that in a matter touching either the discipline or the administration of internal affairs of a University, courts should be most reluctant to interfere. They should refuse to grant an injunction unless a fairly good prima facie case is made out for interfere with the internal affairs of the educational institutions. This case also lays down that when a prima facie case has been made out for interference with the internal affairs of the educational institutions the writ court can interfere. As I have already said that the revised regulations for admission in LL. B. Course which are sought to be enforced by the Calcutta University have not been legally framed as required cannot be enforced and as such the instant writ application cannot be rejected on the mere plea that the autonomy of the University should not be interfered with. The submission, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has no merit and hence it is rejected. ( 24 ) THEREFORE, the regulations that have been framed by the Sub-committee and which are claimed to have been approved by the Calcutta University Council are not enforceable as the same are not made by the authorities concerned in the manner provided under the Act. These regulations prescribing norms for admission in LL. B. Course of Studies have got no validity and the same are not enforceable in law. ( 25 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners having succeeded the application is allowed. Let a Writ of Mandamus issue commanding the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the impugned regulations made and approved by the Calcutta University at its meetings dated 31. 8. 79 and 7th December, 1979 as mentioned in Annexures 'a' and 'b' to the petition as well as in Annexures 'a' and 'c' to the affidavit-in-opposition. Let a Writ of Mandamus issue commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to sit for the ensuing Preliminary Law Examination of the Calcutta University to be held in June, 1982 and to take all steps relating to and/or incidental thereto including receipt of the examination fees and to issue the admit cards. Let a Writ of Certiorari issue quashing, canceling and setting aside the impugned resolutions mentioned in Annexures 'a' and 'c' to the affidavit-in-opposition. Let a Writ of Certiorari issue quashing, canceling and setting aside the impugned resolutions mentioned in Annexures 'a' and 'c' to the affidavit-in-opposition. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Application succeeds.