Md. Salahuddin Sarwar v. State Of Bihar — 1999 DIGILAW 1050 (PAT)

Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. As a common question of law is involved in both these cases, with consent of the parties we have heard the two cases and are being disposed of at the time of admission itself by a common order. 2. This letters patent appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd July, 1999, reported in 1999(3) PLJR 661, by reason of which the writ application preferred by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed. 3. Facts of the case in short are as follows: The petitioner- College being a, minority institution was established in the year 1990. The College was established by Rauf Muslim Jamia, a registered trust, with a view to achieve its aims and objects and to impart teachers training education. As, after establishing the said College, the Society requested the State Government to appoint an inspection team, the report was submitted by the inspection team on 5.10.97 in favour of the College. This request was made to the State Government as for establishing such College no prior permission was required from the Government. Though a favourable report was given, no decision was being taken by the Government, and the students of the College moved this Court in C.W.J.C.No.617 of 1998. This Court directed the University on 28.1.98 to take a decision in accordance with law. Being satisfied with the inspection report, that the College fulfilled the necessary norms, on 9.2.98 the L.N.Mithila University (in short the University) granted affiliation to the College for the sessions 1995-96 and 1996-97. The students were, allowed to appear in the examination for the aforesaid sessions and their result was also published. In the meantime, however, the Parliament came with a special law, known as "National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993", which provides terms and standards for a planned and co-ordinated teachers education system. The petitioner-college applied for its recognition in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and after certain queries the Eastern Regional Committee of the Council by its letter dated 6.9.98 asked the petitioner-College to continue as per the rules of the University until the committee takes a final decision. Subsequently the request for recognition was finally rejected by the Eastern Regional Committee, which was challenged by the petitioner-College in appeal before the National Council, which is pending. Subsequently the request for recognition was finally rejected by the Eastern Regional Committee, which was challenged by the petitioner-College in appeal before the National Council, which is pending. It is said that in the meantime at the instance of the Chancellor of the University a Vigilance inquiry has been initiated regarding grant of education degrees by the Teachers Training Colleges under the University. On 17.4.99 a questionnaire was served on the College under the signature of the Additional S.P.Cabinet (Vigilance) Department Investigation Bureau. On the same day, it is aiieged, that a team of the officers of the Vigilance Department visited the College and seized certain documents. 4. The very authority of the Chancellor to direct such inquiry and the power of Vigilance Department was challenged by the petitioner-college by filing the writ application. The petitioner-college prayed for a direction restraining the Investigation Bureau of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department and its officials from making any inquiry or investigation in respect of the management and affairs of the petitioner college. 5. Before the Writ Court the following points were raised on behalf of the petitioner-College: (i) The College being a private unaided College does not cover under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and, as such, the Vigilance Department/police has no jurisdiction to make any inquiry or to make any investigation. Only the Eastern Regional Committee/National Council or the Academic Council of the University was competent to make inquiry in respect of the management and affairs of the College; (ii) The Chancellor has no authority to direct inquiry/investigation by the Vigilance Department inasmuch as Section 9 of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 does not confer any such power upon the Chancellor; (iii) The Vigilance Department has no jurisdiction to make any inquiry/investigation at the behest of the Chancellor and by doing so the Vigilance Department has encroached upon the jurisdiction of the said two authorities, namely, Eastern Regional Committee/National Council and the Academic Council of the University. 6. On behalf of the writ-petitioner several materials were referred in order to show that the claim of the College as a Teachers Training College was genuine and bonafide as it fulfils the requisite conditions for grant of affiliation/recognition/approval by the concerned aut-horities. 6. On behalf of the writ-petitioner several materials were referred in order to show that the claim of the College as a Teachers Training College was genuine and bonafide as it fulfils the requisite conditions for grant of affiliation/recognition/approval by the concerned aut-horities. Learned Single Judge was of the view that genuineness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner-college was not required to be gone into in the writ application and the scope of the writ petition was quite limited to the question as to whether Investigation Bureau of the Vigilance Department has any jurisdiction to make inquiry/investigation of the crime. While answering this question the learned Single Judge, however,noticed the findings of the inspection team of the Eastern Regional Committee but did not express any opinion of his own. The findings of the inspection team of the Eastern Regional Committee has been noticed by His Lordship in his judgment. The Writ Court also noticed the relevant part of the order of the Eastern Regional Committee dated 26.4.99, by reason of which application for recognition was rejected. Considering the facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the Investigation Bureau of Vigilance Department has jurisdiction to make inquiry/investigation in the matter inasmuch as the inquiry which was conducted relates to the conduct of the officers of the University and the State Government, which officers undisputedly come within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Writ Court was also of the opinion that as till date no case has so far been instituted against the petitioner-College and/or its officers, the writ application was premature and if ultimately any case is instituted against the petitioner-College and/or its officers, they can take recourse to the remedy either under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Constitution of India. With these findings, the writ application was dismissed. 7. Mr. Mishra, as before the writ Court, hammered on the point that the Chancellor had no authority to direct an inquiry by the Vigilance department against some educational institution specially of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Secondly, he contends that even the Vigilance Department was not empowered to make any investigation against the private institution like the petitioner-college. His last grievance was that the learned Single Judge has not answered the question as to how the writ application was premature. Secondly, he contends that even the Vigilance Department was not empowered to make any investigation against the private institution like the petitioner-college. His last grievance was that the learned Single Judge has not answered the question as to how the writ application was premature. Elaborating his argument, learned counsel has contended that in view of Section 9 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 , (in short the Act, 1976) the Chancellor can only direct an inquiry to be made by the Vice-Chancellor of the concerned University and that too only in respect of any matter concerned with, the administration of the University and it shall be the duty of the officers of the University and College to assist in such inspection/inquiry. 8. Countering submissions of the petitioner-appellants counsel, Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance contends that the claim of the petitioner-College as a bonafide institution is based on ownership of the land with building but in course of investigation it has come to light that two sale deeds and the rent receipts, which are the basis of the claim of ownership are forged. According to him even inspection report of the Eastern Regional Committee dated 17.11.98 clearly indicates that the Coliege has no infrastructure and it is hardly in existence. He submits that even though the College did not possess necessary infrastructure and was not eligible for such affiliation, the same was granted. In view of the application allowed by the State Government on 9.2.98 the Vigilance Department considered it appropriate to serve the questionnaire under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. calling upon the petitioner- College to explain the facts. He further submits that after investigating into the matter the F.I.R. has already been filed. A copy of the F.I.R. has been filed by Mr. Pandey for our perusal and according to him at this stage the juridiction of the Vigilance to investigate cannot be gone into. 9. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Chancellor, has contended that when the Chancellor received information about commission of large scale of irregularities in the matter of grant of affiliation/recognition/approval to the Teachers Training Colleges, he directed the Vigilance Department to make an inquiry in this regard. 10. Coming to the first contention, I am of the opinion that the submission of Mr.Mishra is not sustainable in law. 10. Coming to the first contention, I am of the opinion that the submission of Mr.Mishra is not sustainable in law. Subsection (1) of Section 9 of the Act, 1976 contemplates that "the Governor of Bihar shall be the Chancellor and shall, by virtue of his office, be the head of the University and the President of the Senate, and shall, when present, preside over meetings of the Senate, and at any convocation of the University". Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, 1976, which is relevant, reads thus: "(2) The Chancellor shall have the powers to inspect the University, its buildings, laboratories, workshops and equipment, any college or hostel, the teaching or examinations conducted, or any act done by the University, and to get such inspection done by such person or persons who may be directed by him and to inquire or to cause an inquiry made, in like manner, in respect of any matter connected with the University and it shall be the duty of the officers of the concerned University and College to render, necessary assistance in such inspection :] Provided that the Chancellor shall, in every case, inform the Vice-Chancellor of his intention to inspect or inquire or to get the inspection or inquiry conducted and the University shall be entitled to representation therein." 11. Thus, power of the Chancellor as enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Act, 1976 clearly indicate that so far administration of the Universities is concerned, the Chancellor will exercise his power as provided under this section. However, the Act does not prohibit the Chancellor in directing an inquiry by an agency in respect of certain financial irregularities and allegations of corruption against the officers of the Universities including the Vice-Chancellor. In the present case, admittedly, on getting certain informations, the Chancellor requested the Vigilance to inquire about grant of education degrees by the Teachers Training Colleges under the L.N.Mithila University. From report of Eastern Regionaf Committee if the Chancellor was of the opinion that there was some Teachers Training Colleges under the University, in my view, being an administrative head of the University the Chancellor was well within his jurisdiction to ask the Vigilance to make an inquiry in this regard. From report of Eastern Regionaf Committee if the Chancellor was of the opinion that there was some Teachers Training Colleges under the University, in my view, being an administrative head of the University the Chancellor was well within his jurisdiction to ask the Vigilance to make an inquiry in this regard. Moreover, when action of the Vice-Chancellor of a particular University was under cloud, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the Vice-Chancellor was required to get the inquiry done about illegalities committed by the officers of the Universities including himself. 12. In this connection I may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and another V/s. J.A.C.Saldana and others (1980 Cri.L.J. 98), wherein it has been held that the State Government is competent to direct Inspector General, Vigilance to take over investigation of cognizable offence registered at police station. Similarly in the case of R.P.Kapur and others V/s. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon and others (AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1117), their Lordships, inter alia, observed thus: "Section 154 Criminal P.C. does not lay down that information of a cognizable offence can only be given to an officer in charge of a police station. Where the Additional Inspector-General of Police who is undoubtedly superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station and whose jurisdictional area is the whole of the State got a complaint from the Chief Minister of the State (to whom it was sent by the complainant) & who in his turn, in view of the status of the accused, sent it to the Deputy Superintendent of Police C.I.D. who is also superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station and whose jurisdictional area also extends over the whole State, for investigation it cannot be said in view of the provisions of S.551 Criminal P.C. that a procedure unknown to law was adopted or that there was denial of the right of equal protection of the laws within the meaning of Art. 14." 13. Thus, if in the instant case the Chancellor in order to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the complaints received by him asked the Vigilance Department to inquire into the matter in view of the status of the officers of the University, it cannot be said that he did it with an evil eye or unequal hand. Moreover, in my view, the petitioner-College cannot question either the authority of the Chancellor for such request to the Vigilance Department or the jurisdiction of the Vigilance Department for conducting the investigation inasmuch as the said investigation was to be carried on against the officers of the University, against whom some complaints were made before him regarding grant of affiliation etc. to the various Teachers Training Colleges. 14. So far the jurisdiction of the Vigilance to investigafe into the matter is concerned, it appears that Mr.Mishra has overlooked the provisions of Section 2(c)(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Under this provision the Vice Chancellor or member of any governing body, professor, reader, lecturer or any other teacher or employee of any University and any person whose services have been availed of by a University or any other public authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations are public servants. Undoubtedly, the Vigilance Department is a State agency and, as such, if it gets any information, it can swing into action by holding an inquiry and even for this no particular entrustment is required. 15. In this context another aspect is to be considered. Admittedly, the Chancellor did not ask the Vigilance Department to inquire into the affairs of the petitioner-College, rather he has directed to make an inquiry into the conduct of the concerned officers of the LN.Mithila University and the State Government. It is to be borne in mind that neither the concerned official of the State Government nor any official of the LN.Mithila University has questioned the authority of the Chancellor to direct such inquiry/investigation vis-a-vis the power of the Vigilance Department to inquire into the matter. If during course of investigation the Vigilance Department has served a questionnaire to the petitioner-College, the same is in my view, only for knowing the real facts. If during course of investigation the Vigilance Department has served a questionnaire to the petitioner-College, the same is in my view, only for knowing the real facts. When the petitioner-appellant moved this Court in the writ application, admittedly F.I.R. was not submitted and, as such, in my opinion, the petitioner-College had no locus standi to question the authority of either the Chancellor or the Vigilance Department. The learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the writ application was premature. Secondly, after submission of the F.I.R. the power of the Vigilance Department to inquire/investigate into the matter becomes academic in this appeal as the petitioner-appellant may take recourse to any adequate remedies either under the Constitution of India or the Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. No other points were raised by Mr. Mishra in support of his contention and considering the points raised by him, I am of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. This appeal is accordingly, thus, dismissed having no merit. 17. So far the writ application filed by Md.Salahuddin in the nature of public interest litigation is concerned, I am of the view that the same has been filed only to throttle the investigation conducted by the Vigilance Department. The petitioner has nowhere stated about his locus standi in moving this Court by filing this public interest litigation. Only because he is one of the minorities institution under the jurisdiction of the L.N.Mithila University, in my view, does not give him a right to challenge the investigation/inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Department on the request of the Chancellor of the University. It appears that the petitioner also does not want that the conduct of the official of the University and the State Government in granting affiliation/recognition/approval to the Teachers Training Colleges should come to light. In my considered view it cannot be the scope of a public interest litigation in the present facts and circumstances. 18. In the result, I find no merit in this writ application, which is accordingly, dismissed. 19. Thus, both the cases fail having no merit. B.N.Agrawal, J. 20 I agree.