D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) ) having been aggrieved by the judgment, dated 31-10-2001, in W. P. No. 5974 of 2000, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, the present Review Petition is filed by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, we refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the writ petition, for better appreciation of this Review Petition are as under: the petitioner-Osmania University challenging the proceedings dated 23-3-2000 issued by the 2nd respondent-A. P. State minorities Commission (for brevity "the commission") filed the writ petition. By the impugned order, the Registrar of Osmania university was directed to appear before the commission along with relevant records pertaining to the selection to the posts of lecturers in Urdu and Linguistics respectively in the petitioner-University. ( 4 ) THE facts behind issuing the impugned proceedings are that selections for the posts of Lecturers in different departments were notified by the petitioner-University. The said posts include lecturers in the departments of Urdu and Linguistics. It appears that the selections were made and all the posts except in the department of urdu and Linguistics were filled up. It appears two candidates, who participated in the selection process and selected, could not get the appointments, made complaints to the Commission alleging that they were being deprived of appointment because of their minority status, basis of which was also explained in their complaints. Upon such complaints, the Registrar of Osmania university was called upon to offer remarks. Accordingly, remarks were offered by the registrar of Osmania University by way of reply, dated 2-11-1999, giving out the reasons for not filling up those posts, though notified and selection process was concluded. Since no satisfactory information was received through the reply communication of the Registrar, Osmania university, the Commission has issued further communication to the Osmania university on 24-11-1999. The University replied to the said communication on 8-12-1999 giving out the same reasons. Ultimately, it appears, G. O. Rt. No. 1140 higher Education (UE. I. 21) Department, dated 5-11-1999, was issued permitting the university for making appointments in the departments of Urdu and Linguistics pursuant to the original notification of the year 1997. In spite of which, no action was initiated by the petitioner in making appointments to the aspiring candidates who belong to Muslim minority. No. 1140 higher Education (UE. I. 21) Department, dated 5-11-1999, was issued permitting the university for making appointments in the departments of Urdu and Linguistics pursuant to the original notification of the year 1997. In spite of which, no action was initiated by the petitioner in making appointments to the aspiring candidates who belong to Muslim minority. Therefore, the Commission again intimated the petitioner to act in accordance with the said g. O. Rt. No. 1140; dated 5-11-1999, failing which, it was indicated that the Commission would be constrained to invoke the provisions of the A. P. State Minorities commission Act (for brevity "the Act" ). It appears that the petitioner in response to the same, tried to justify the stand and eventually the Commission had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 23-3-2000, alleging that prima facie the University had inordinately and wantonly delayed the finalization of the above posts in spite of issuance of G. O. Rt. No. 1140, dated 5-11-1999, by the Government. Hence, the registrar of the University was called upon to be present along with relevant records for being examined by the Commission. The registrar of the University appeared before the Commission and his sworn statement was partly recorded and for further recording of the statement of the Registrar, the matter was adjourned and at that point of time, the University has filed the writ petition and obtained interim orders from this court. ( 5 ) THE main grievance of the writ petitioner in the writ petition was that the commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the functioning of the University inasmuch as the same is an autonomous body; that the Commission has no power to enter into any alleged controversy in respect of selection of teachers in the Universities and that the powers of the Commission were only in respect of the Government departments and that too, only to a limited extent of (1) Studying, (2) Reviewing, (3) Examining complaints, (4) Evaluate, (5) Conduct Studies, and (6) Suggest appropriate legal and welfare measures in respect of any minority. It is the contention of the University that the Commission has no jurisdiction to probe into the process of selection /appointment of teachers of the university. Apart from the said contentions, other contentions were also raised on merits, underlining certain reasons for not filling up the posts in question. It is the contention of the University that the Commission has no jurisdiction to probe into the process of selection /appointment of teachers of the university. Apart from the said contentions, other contentions were also raised on merits, underlining certain reasons for not filling up the posts in question. ( 6 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Commission repudiating the averments made in the writ petition. ( 7 ) INITIALLY, a learned single Judge of this court while admitting the writ petition has granted interim stay on 11-4-2000, and the subsequent order, dated 6-2-2001, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in w. P. M. P. No. 7900 of 2000 and w. V. M. P. N0. 1724 of 2000 in the said writ petition, was carried in W. A. Nos. 222 of 2001 and 247 of 2001, one by the University and the other by a third party. Thus, the said writ Appeals came to be heard by a Division bench of this court and the main writ petition itself was disposed of along with the said Writ Appeals. ( 8 ) MR. Vilas V. Afzul Purkar, the learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the commission, contends that the Division bench of this court was in error in holding firstly that the individual complaints cannot be entertained by the Commission and the commission can only investigate into the group rights, and secondly that in terms of section 11 of the Act, the University being an autonomous body is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of University contends that there is neither error apparent on the face of the record nor review petition is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and that since the university being an autonomous body is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Act. ( 10 ) SO far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner i. e. , the Commission, that the Division Bench of this court was in serious error in holding that the individual complaints cannot be entertained by the Commission and that the commission can only investigate into the group rights is concerned, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act. ( 11 ) SECTION 12 of the Act deals with the functions of the Commission and they are extracted as under:- (A) to evaluate the working of various safeguards provides in the constitution for the protection of minorities and in laws passed by the Union and State Governments; (b) to make recommendations with a view to ensure effective implementation and enforcement of all (safeguards and) the law; (c) to undertake a review of the implementation of the policies, pursued by the Union and the State governments with respect to the minorities; (d) to look into specific complaints regarding deprivation of rights and safeguards in the interest of the minorities; (e) to conduct studies, research and analysis on the questions of avoidance of discrimination against minorities; (f) to suggest appropriate legal and welfare measures in respect of any minority to be undertaken by the government. " ( 12 ) A careful reading of clause (d) of section 12 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that specific complaints regarding any deprivation of rights and safeguards in the interests of minorities can also be looked into by the Commission. The expression specific complaints would amply indicate that the Commission is empowered to look into the specific grievances. Again the specific grievances should be understood as a distinct grievance, which may not necessarily be related with common grievance of a group of individuals belonging to minorities. In other words, specific complaints shall mean that a specific grievance of an individual or individuals or groups of individuals. To elucidate, if a person belonging to minority is deprived of a legal right or a sort of injustice is caused to him on any ground, which may be implied or explicit, the same can be termed as a specific complaint. The object in incorporating this particular clause is purportedly to look into the grievances of an individual or individuals or group of individuals, which are specific in nature, apart from the other functions of the commission relating to various constitutional safeguards, provided to the minorities, to study and make suitable measures and recommendations as provided under clauses (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) of Section 12 of the Act. ( 13 ) TO put it in a different way, clause (d) of Section 12 of the Act is an exception to clauses (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f ). ( 13 ) TO put it in a different way, clause (d) of Section 12 of the Act is an exception to clauses (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f ). By and large, no doubt, the functions of the Commission are in the nature of overseeing various protections ensured to the minorities and also to see that the objects and policies of the state Government in respect of minorities are properly implemented and also to make appropriate suggestions in furtherance of the welfare of the minorities. Therefore, the specific function of the Commission provided under clause (d) of Section 12 of the act is an additional and a distinct function enabling it to go into the specific complaints. ( 14 ) TO put it precisely clause (d) of section 12 of the Act contemplates that the commission shall look into the specific complaints by group of people or specific complaints by single individual or complaints by different individuals. In other words, specific complaints may be (a) by a single person, (b) specific complaint by a group of people, (c) specific complaints by different individuals and similarly (4) specific complaints of different nature. The said clause (d) should be understood in such a manner that the Commission has to look into the individual grievances also when the specific grievance of an individual may reflect upon the sentiment of a section of minority. Such a specific complaint by a single person should also be brought into the fold of specific complaints under clause (d ). ( 15 ) SPECIFIC complaints need not be necessarily by a group of persons. For example a group of persons make a specific complaint, it comes within the scope of the expression single complaint . Conversely, if one individual makes different complaints on different grounds, in such cases also it becomes specific complaints. Therefore, specific complaints may be made by a group of persons belonging to minority or by a single person. ( 16 ) PLURALITY of specific complaints may be by one individual or by a group of individuals. The obvious stress under section 12 (d) is only on the plurality of specific complaints but not on the plurality of individuals. Therefore, specific complaints may be made by a group of persons belonging to minority or by a single person. ( 16 ) PLURALITY of specific complaints may be by one individual or by a group of individuals. The obvious stress under section 12 (d) is only on the plurality of specific complaints but not on the plurality of individuals. ( 17 ) FURTHER the expression number has been defined under Section 3 (35) of the andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891 and the same is extracted as under:- words in the singular shall include the plural and words in the plural shall include the singular. ( 18 ) THEREFORE, even as per the above definition, specific complaints shall be read as specific complaint or complaints by a single person or group of persons. ( 19 ) AT this juncture, we have gone through the impugned proceedings, dated 23-3-2000, of the Commission. The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings is very much necessary, being vital, to be extracted:"in order to verify and examine that no discrimination has been shown to sri Md. Ansari and Sri Md. Nazeer ahmed, the candidates for the appointment of Lecturers in the departments of Linguistics and Urdu respectively whether the decision making statutory authorities have functioned impassionately, for the selection of candidates in the departments of Linguistics and Urdu who are members of Muslim Minority community for it has been inordinately and designedly delayed for 4 long years in finalization of the appointment even after the government of Andhra Pradesh issued g. O. Rt. No. 1140 Higher Education (UE. I. 2) Department, dated 5th of november, 1999. " ( 20 ) FROM the above, it is clear that it is not the specific complaint of one individual that was under enquiry before the Commission. In fact, the record i. e. , the very impugned proceedings, dated 23-3-2000, reveals that there are two specific complaints of similar nature by two different individuals. Those individuals are by name Sri Md. Ansari and sri Md. Nazeer Ahmed, who were the candidates for appointment to the post of lecturers in the departments of Urdu and linguistics respectively. It was specifically mentioned in the impugned proceedings that there is inordinate delay of 4 long years in filling up the posts by the minority candidates in spite of issuing G. O. Rt. No. 1140 Higher Education (UE. Nazeer Ahmed, who were the candidates for appointment to the post of lecturers in the departments of Urdu and linguistics respectively. It was specifically mentioned in the impugned proceedings that there is inordinate delay of 4 long years in filling up the posts by the minority candidates in spite of issuing G. O. Rt. No. 1140 Higher Education (UE. I. 2) department, dated 5-11-1999, by the government of Andhra Pradesh. Perhaps the facts and circumstances particularly in the light of the events which had taken place from the date of issuing of communication by the Commission to the petitioner, till the date of issuing the impugned proceedings so many facts have been taken note of and all those factors need not be mentioned, though worthy, since we are conscious that we are dealing with a Review Petition only. ( 21 ) VIEWING from the angle put forth by the Division Bench of this court that the commission has to deal with the group problems, it is apparent on the face of the record that two individuals have made specific complaints and hence the Division bench was in error inasmuch as this crucial and factual aspect was lost sight of by the division Bench of this court; perhaps only one of the abovementioned 2 individuals who made complaints got impleaded himself as a party to the writ petition. ( 22 ) IT was further observed by the division Bench of this Court that:". . . . . . THE University is an autonomous body as has been held in Ramakrishna vyas. It is not a limb of the government. It is not even bound by such directions as may be mandated by a Statute. Such direction to furnish information could be issued by the state against the University. The financial management to some extent is also conferred upon the State in terms of Sections 47 and 49 of the A. P. Universities Act, 1991. " ( 23 ) THE above observations of the division Bench of this court, no doubt, unexceptionable in the facts and circumstances of Ramakrishna Vyas case (1999) 4 SCC 720 . But it is to be noted that the expression used in Section 11 of the Act any person includes a juristic person. Hence the University being the juristic person cannot get extricated from the jurisdiction exercisable by the Commission under Section 11 of the Act. But it is to be noted that the expression used in Section 11 of the Act any person includes a juristic person. Hence the University being the juristic person cannot get extricated from the jurisdiction exercisable by the Commission under Section 11 of the Act. ( 24 ) IN this context, it is necessary to note the reasoning given by the Division Bench of this court, which is as under:"in terms of Article 338 of the constitution of India, an individual cannot make any complaint against an action taken by a State which can be subject matter of the adjudication before a Court of law. The Commission having regard to the scheme and object of the Act cannot usurp an adjudicatory power. The power of the commission being recommendatory in nature, it can deal with only group rights only wherein the right of a group has been affected. " ( 25 ) NO doubt, the power of the commission is recommendatory in nature, as pointed out in the above extract. But, we are of the considered view that the view of the Division Bench of this court in restricting the power of the Commission to deal with only group rights, i. e. , where the rights of a group have been affected is patently erroneous, in view of clause (d) of Section 12 of the Act. As already pointed out, clause (d) is an exceptional, distinct and additional power conferred upon the Commission, apart from the function of dealing with - group rights. ( 26 ) THE above said power under clause (d) is mandatory in nature in view of the language used in the opening words of section 12 of the Act. ( 27 ) IT is to be noted that the Division bench of this court has further recorded in its judgment as under:"further more, the Commission can requisition such a document or assistance as may be required from any department of the Government for implementation of the provisions of the Act. Such a power has not been given in relation to any other authority. " ( 28 ) IN this connection, it is necessary to look into the powers and functions of the commission provided under Section 11 of the Act which is extracted, hereunder for ready reference. Such a power has not been given in relation to any other authority. " ( 28 ) IN this connection, it is necessary to look into the powers and functions of the commission provided under Section 11 of the Act which is extracted, hereunder for ready reference. Section 11 Powers and Functions of the commission: (1) The Commission shall, while performing its functions under section 12, the Commission have the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and in particular, in respect of the following matters namely:- (I) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of the State and examining him on oath; (ii) Requiring the discovery and production of any document; (iii) Receiving evidence on affidavits; (iv) Requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office; (v) Issuing Commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; and (vi) Any other matter, which may be prescribed. (2) The Commission shall have the power to requisition such information, document and such assistance as maybe required from any department of the Government for the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act. ( 29 ) A reading of sub-section (1) of Sec. 11 makes it abundantly clear that while exercising the powers, the Commission has the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit in respect of the matters mentioned therein, summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of the State and examining him on oath. It can also require discovery and the production of any document. ( 30 ) ONLY sub-section (2) of Section 11 contemplates that the Commission has power to requisition any information, document and such assistance from any department of the Government for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Act. ( 31 ) A careful perusal of Section 11 makes it amply clear that the powers of the commission under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 11 are different and distinct with each other. ( 32 ) THEREFORE, we are of the considered view that the Division Bench of this court was in error, while reading only a truncated portion of Section 11 i. e. , only sub-section (2) of Section 11 in total elimination of subsection (1) of Section 11, which would result in restricting or slashing down the powers of the Commission drastically. Therefore, the above observation of the Division Bench, which obviously was made only with reference to sub-section (2) of Section 11, in our view, is also erroneous, which is apparent on the face of the record. ( 33 ) THOUGH there are other reasons for us to express a contra opinion, we are not venturing to go into those aspects, again for the same reason that we are dealing with the review Petition only which is subject to certain limitations. ( 34 ) IN this context, the learned Standing counsel for the Osmania University relied on a judgment of the apex court reported in all India I. O. B. SC and ST Employees Welfare assn. v. Union of India. ( 35 ) BOTH sides relied on several judgments regarding the circumstances under which review can be entertained by the High Court. All the judgments cited by both sides are in different contexts and they are unexceptionable. However, having regard to the errors apparent on the face of the record, as pointed out by us earlier, the judgments cited by the learned counsel on either side are not necessary to be referred to. ( 36 ) FURTHER it is to be noted that the writ petitioner specifically challenges the jurisdiction of the Commission only on the ground that the University is an autonomous body constituted under the statute and governed by the statutory provisions and hence not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission. ( 37 ) IN this regard, it is to be noted from the record that the Commission had sent communications from time to time and the same were explained by the University and finally when the impugned proceeding dated 23-3-2000 was issued by the commission exercising its jurisdiction under section 11, interestingly, the Registrar, representing the University, appeared before the Commission and his sworn statement was also recorded in part. This fact shows that the writ petitioner- university has accepted the jurisdiction of the Commission by way of participating in the enquiry or investigation initiated and conducted by the Commission under section 11 of the Act and hence it is not open for the writ petitioner-University to challenge the jurisdiction of the Commission at this stage. This fact shows that the writ petitioner- university has accepted the jurisdiction of the Commission by way of participating in the enquiry or investigation initiated and conducted by the Commission under section 11 of the Act and hence it is not open for the writ petitioner-University to challenge the jurisdiction of the Commission at this stage. ( 38 ) IN other words, even from a perusal of letters of explanation offered by the registrar, representing the University, to the communications made by the Commission, it is to be noted that at no point of time, he raised any objection as regards the jurisdiction of the Commission. Further at least when the Registrar appeared before the commission or during the course of enquiry or investigation, while giving sworn statements, no objection regarding the jurisdiction was taken. Having participated in the enquiry made by the Commission, in response to the impugned proceedings dated 23-3-2000, at a later point of time, the present writ petition is filed, contending that since the University is an autonomous body constituted under the statute, the commission has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the conduct on the part of the Registrar amounts to either acquiescing the jurisdiction of the Commission or waiving his right. However, we have already expressed our views about the other aspects dealt with by the Division Bench, including the jurisdiction and pointed the errors both factual and legal, which are apparent on the face of the record. ( 39 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the review petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed and consequently the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.