Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 88 (MP)

BHARAT CHHAPARWAL v. STATE OF M. P.

2005-01-17

DIPAK MISHRA

body2005
ORDER : – In invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under 1226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the notification dated 20-2-2004 contained in Annexure-P/1 issued under section 52(1) of the M. P. Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 22 of 1973) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] . 2-3. The expose of facts are that the petitioner, a Postgraduate in Paediatrics, was awarded with certain awards and had undergone special advance training in Paediatrics and Medical Education in Royal Victoria Infirmity, New Castle-Upon-Tyne in UK and College of Medicines and Dentisstry New York, New Jersey USA the jurisdiction of the University except the institutions affiliated with Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya and R.G. Praudyogiki Vishwa Vidyalaya. A reference has been made to sections 10, 14 and 52 of the Act. Section 10 deals with inspection of University and college. Section 14 provides for emoluments and conditions of Service of Kulpati, terms of office and vacancy in the office of Kulpati. Section 52 lays down the power of the State Government to apply Act in modified from with a view to provide for better administration of University in certain circumstraces. It is urged that the petitioner was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the University on 7-9-1996 as per Annexure-P/4. He completed his first term of four years on 6-9-2000. He was again appointed for a second term by Annexure-P/5. During his tenure as Vice-Chancellor he has achieved outstanding progress. The University Grant Commission has designated the University as a Centre of Excellence as per Annexure-P/ 7B. A reference has been made to Peer Team report which has been brought on record as Annexure-P 17. In essence, it has been pleaded that during the tenure of the petitioner the University has achieved sound status which was of great repute, and the recognition which cannot be marginalised. The petitioner has also put forth that the several buildings of the University which were lying in useless and incomplete condition have been completed and put to use. The over draft of the University has been wiped out and in February, 2004 the University had fixed deposits of more than 20 crores. The petitioner has also put forth that the several buildings of the University which were lying in useless and incomplete condition have been completed and put to use. The over draft of the University has been wiped out and in February, 2004 the University had fixed deposits of more than 20 crores. It is contended that when newly elected Government of Madhya Pradesh came into being some nominated political members of the Executive and their supporters started a campaign of misbehavior against the petitioner. One Alok Davar, a nominated member of the Executive Council meeting held on 31-12-2003 manhandled the petitioner. The Senior Professors of the University who were members of the Executive Council strongly protested against the misbehaviour to the Kuladhipati by a letter, Annexure-P/9. The nominated political members of the Executive Council made a complaints to the Kuladhipati against the petitioner, the said complaint has been brought on record as Annexure-P/11. The said complaint was answered in full by reply date 16-2-2004 by the petitioner as per Annexure-P/12. Apart from the aforesaid complaint there is no other complaint and no inquiry has been made against the conduct of the petitioner. When the matter stood thus, action was taken under section 52 of the Act. In that regard certain news reports were published in different newspapers which have been enumerated in the writ petition. It is contended that the demand of removal of the petitioner was mala fide and it was a device to get a favourable person appointed as Vice Chancellor so that the nominated political members of the Executive Council and their supporters could have a free play in the working of the University which was denied to them during the tenure of the petitioner. An enquiry was also held against him before imposition of removal under section 52 of the Act and the petitioner was not served with any order issued by the State Government. Subsequently he obtained copies of Annexure-P/1 and Annexure-P/2. The impugned orders show that section 52 of the Act has been invoked and the petitioner has been removed from the post of Vice-Chancellor and the respondent No. 4 has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor under section 52(1) of the Act. Despite request of the petitioner to make a copy of the order available nothing has been received by him. 4. The impugned orders show that section 52 of the Act has been invoked and the petitioner has been removed from the post of Vice-Chancellor and the respondent No. 4 has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor under section 52(1) of the Act. Despite request of the petitioner to make a copy of the order available nothing has been received by him. 4. It is contended in the petition that exercise of power under section 52(1) of the Act is contrary to the law laid down in the case of Narendra Kumar Gouraha vs. State of M. P., 1999 (1) MPJR 188. It is averred that removal of the petitioner from the post of the Vice-Chancellor is neither just nor sound. It is in fact, in dissonance with the concept of section 52 of the Act. Assertions have been made that power has been exercised in an arbitrary manner. There was allegation that there has been systematic political campaign to destabilize the existing academic structure and to terrorise the Vice-Chancellors so that the autonomy of the universities may be undermined and be made to run at the dictates of the politicians. It is the stand of the petitioner that there was no material before the Government for invoking the power under section 52 of the Act; that the nominated members of the Executive Council were bent on securing the removal of the petitioner without any base or foundation; that his removal is arbitrary and does not withstand scrutiny tested on the anvil of the requirements which have been provided under section 52(1) of the Act; that no opportunity to show cause was afforded to the petitioner before the adverse action was taken; that exercise of power under section 52 of the Act by mentioning the words in the order would not suffice to meet the requirement; and that stigma is cast without affording an opportunity of being heard. In this factual backdrop prayer has been made for lanceting the orders passed vide Annexure-P/1 and Annexure-P/2. 5. A return has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contending, inter alia, that the writ petition should not be entertained by this Court as the cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of Indore inasmuch as the University is situated therein. 5. A return has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contending, inter alia, that the writ petition should not be entertained by this Court as the cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of Indore inasmuch as the University is situated therein. Reference has been made to section 52 of the Act to highlight that the Government has the power to exercise declaration of emergency under the said provision if the Government is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act without detriment to the interest of the University and it is expedient in the interest of the University to do so on the basis of the report or otherwise. It is put forth that certain complaints were made by one Jitendra Singh and four other members of the Executive Council against the petitioner. The complaint, Annexure-P/11, would clearly reveal that the University was not functioning properly. After due consideration of the same it was found that a situation has come forth in the University by which the functioning of the University cannot be carried out effectively under the leadership of the Vice Chancellor. In addition to the aforesaid complaint, on the basis of various complaints received against the petitioner, it was thought expedient to declare emergency. It is contended that the action taken under section 52 of the Act is an exercise of legislative character delegated to the executives and it does not envisage any kind of opportunity of being heard. As such an action is not against a person but it is exercise of the power conferred on the State and as long as such power is exercised strictly within ambit and sweep of the provisions, the same do not deserve any kind of interference. It is urged that to take action under section 52(1) of the Act certain conditions are to be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the State Government either on report or otherwise and existence of a situation which would reveal that the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act without causing detriment to the interest of the University and further that it is expedient in the interest of the University to issue a notification. It is asseverated that sufficient material was available with the respondent to come to the conclusion that the provisions under section 52 of the Act were inevitable in the interest of the University and hence, no fault can be found with the notification under assail. Various instances have been given when the State Government exercised the power under section 52(1) of the Act at various points of time. The said documents have been brought on record as Annexures-R/2 to R/7 to justify the action of the State Government in question. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 contending, inter alia, that the present petition is not maintainable at the Principal Seat of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the law laid down in the case of K. P. Govil vs. Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalay, Jabalpur, 1987 M.P.L.J. 396 is not applicable to the present case inasmuch as the office in question is situated within the jurisdiction of the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It is contended that once a complaint, has been made by the member of the Executive Council it is indicative of the fact that during the tenure of the petitioner there was mal-administration of the University. It is put forth that the allegations of mala fide have been made in a casual manner and there is no material to support the same. The removal of the petitioner from the office of the Vice Chancellor has been justified on the ground that there has been sufficient material on record to exercise power under section 52(1) of the Act. There has been failure of the administrative machinery of the University and the petitioner had committed material irregularities. Irregularities have been enumerated in paragraph 5 of the return. It is put forth that for many years books for accounts of International Institute of Professional Studies, an institute of the respondent-University was not properly kept. The respondent No. 4 has assumed the charge of Kulpati and has appointed an independent firm of Senior Chartered Accountants to audit the accounts. The Institute has already submitted its interim report on the accounts of the Institute for the year ending 31-12-2003 highlighting the irregularities relating to financial mismanagement of the accounts to crores of rupees. The aforesaid interim report has been brought on record as Annexure-R-3-4/1. The Institute has already submitted its interim report on the accounts of the Institute for the year ending 31-12-2003 highlighting the irregularities relating to financial mismanagement of the accounts to crores of rupees. The aforesaid interim report has been brought on record as Annexure-R-3-4/1. It is pointed out that the interim report clearly reveals that there has been gross violation of the Regulations 69, 73-78, 169, 170, 175, 176, 185, 187 and 189 of the University. The petitioner during has tenure as Kulpati offered 25 degrees with such nomenclature which were not recognized by the University Grant Commission. The University Grant Commission by its letter dated 9-7-2001 directed the Registrar of the University for making an amendment by substituting existing nomenclature by specified nomenclature in the same letter from the academic session 2001-2002. It is urged that the University Grant Commission has stayed the existing nomenclature for the academic session 2001-2002 in the interest of the students, but the University granted the same as it was bent upon to play with the careers of the students. A reference has been made to section 22(3) of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956, which stipulate about the degree and what is the role of the said body. It is contended as a result of offer of non-specified degrees by the University number of writ petitions have been filed against the University and the UGC in its return filed in one of the writ petition stated that granting of unspecified degrees is detrimental and unfavourable to the interest of the students inasmuch as the said purported degrees would not be recognized qualification and adversely impair their future prospects. It is put forth that the University has misled the students community. It is also putforth that the University has also offered B.A. LL.B five years degree conducted by itself which is not a specified and recognised degree of the UGC, as a reverberation of which students who have been enrolled in B.A. LL.B. for academic session 2001-2002 and thereafter would not be entitled to be registered for practice of law nor State Bar Council will grant them licence and they may also not be permitted to appear in the examination meant for Civil Judges. A reference has been made to the letter dated 27-6-2003 sent by the Bar Council of India wherein it has granted permission only to one section of 80 students to eleven colleges enlisted in the said letter and the Indore Institute of Law was permitted to have two sections each of 80 students by separate letter. The Bar Council of India again on 30-8-2003 permitted all the eleven colleges to have two sections each of 80 students total strength of 160 and the seats were accordingly increased. The Registrar of the University and the Chairperson of the Admission Committee did not permit any college to admit another section of 80 students except Indore Institute of Law. There were six Government Colleges in the list which were not allowed to increase one additional section for implementation of the directions of the Bar Council of India. It is put forth that the act of the Registrar and the Chairperson Admission Committee was disadvantageous to the interest of the University. It is put forth that the respondent No. 4 after assuming the office of the Vice Chancellor implemented the letter dated 30-8-2004. There is allegation that the petitioner has been accused of giving preferential treatment to one Dr. (Ms.) Prachi Dixit in utter disregard of various provisions of Adhiniyam, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations of the University in the matter of appointment. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner had taken over the charge of Mateshwari Sugani Devi Girls College as constituent part of the University at his own instance without following the provisions of the Act or Statute or Ordinance or Regulation and all this was done to appoint said Dr. (Ms) Dixit, who was a Lecturer in the said College. It is urged in the petition that a post of Assistant Director (Non-teaching post in Adult Education) was redeployed to the teaching post of Reader in English in the School of Open and Flexible Education to oblige and favour Dr. (Ms) Dixit. He has allowed her to look after the work of supervision in Central Evaluation Centre of the University during her usual office hours, for which she had been paid extra remuneration at the rate of Rs. 350/- per day. It is put forth that the petitioner has abused the landline telephone by talking to Dr. (Ms) Dixit. (Ms) Dixit. He has allowed her to look after the work of supervision in Central Evaluation Centre of the University during her usual office hours, for which she had been paid extra remuneration at the rate of Rs. 350/- per day. It is put forth that the petitioner has abused the landline telephone by talking to Dr. (Ms) Dixit. According to the respondents the petitioner has violated the directions in a habitual manner. Enumerations have been made how be has violated the Regulation for number of times. 7. It is also urged that the petitioner has formed a Standing Committee of Executive Council without making any regulation and thereby has violated the provisions of section 24(xiv) of the Act. The Standing Committee has violated the provisions of para 5 of the Statute No. 27. It is contended that academic matters have not been produced before the Academic Council for approval which has caused detriment to the field of education. There was an atmosphere of fear, terror and insecurity in the administration of the University. The petitioner also violated the provisions of section 15(2) and (9) of the Act and the rules framed therein, in delegation of powers to the Rector, Dr. Sudhakar Rharti. Dr. Bharti has also violated the provisions of para 5 of the Statute No. 27. The petitioner has also caused flagrant violation of the Statute 33 of the University relating to the constitution of Building Committee. He constituted the Committee of as many as 15 members, 8 more than the legitimate number and got the construction work for several crores approved through this invalid Building Committee. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner in violation of the Statute No. 2 of the University sanctioned additional payment at the rate of 20% of his basic pay to Dr. Sudhakar Bharti on the pretext of following provisions of expired sanction by the Coordination Committee after the said date. By virtue of this action a sum of Rs. 1.80 Crores was paid in excess. The petitioner in utter disregard of the provisions of section 30(1) of the Act constituted the Academic Planning and Evaluation Board exercising the powers given under emergency provisions of section 15(4) of the Act thereby causing incalculable harm in demolishing the democratic functioning and vitiating the academic atmosphere within the University. 1.80 Crores was paid in excess. The petitioner in utter disregard of the provisions of section 30(1) of the Act constituted the Academic Planning and Evaluation Board exercising the powers given under emergency provisions of section 15(4) of the Act thereby causing incalculable harm in demolishing the democratic functioning and vitiating the academic atmosphere within the University. It is the stand of the respondents that certain correspondences were made between the Vice Chancellor and Chancellor which were not based on facts and certain statements were made deliberately. It is asserted that the petitioner had informed the office of the Chancellor that the Executive Council of the University in its meeting of June 14, 2003, had constituted a Committee of Experts for selecting the air-conditioning for auditorium, but the matter was never put up before the Executive Council of the University. Minutes of the said meeting has been brought on record as Annexure:R-3-4/15. There is allegation of illegality and irregularity committed in demand of medical reimbursement claims by the petitioner. It is also put forth by the respondents that the petitioner in violation of the Regulations allowed extraordinary leave on loss of pay to Dr. I. C. Gupta during his probation period, but the said job and this information was deliberately withheld while getting the sanction from the Executive Council. It is also the stand of the respondents that the petitioner in gross violation of sections 24 to 30 of the Act proposed sanction of 132 posts in the Institute of Engineering and Technology without obtaining the sanction from the State Government which is mandatory. Two persons, namely, Dr. V. D. Jha and Dr. K. P. Joshi both were given reappointments after attaining the age of superannuation during the tenure of the petitioner, though such appointments were prima facie illegal and hence, the Chancellor was compelled to terminate their services. 8. I have heard Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Shashank Verma for the petitioner and Mr. R. N. Singh, learned Advocate General along with Arpan Pawar of the respondents. 9. It is submitted by Mr. Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the objection relating to preliminary jurisdiction has no tenability inasmuch as a part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction and the main seat and in any event in the lack of inherent jurisdiction there is no impediment to hear the case. 9. It is submitted by Mr. Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the objection relating to preliminary jurisdiction has no tenability inasmuch as a part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction and the main seat and in any event in the lack of inherent jurisdiction there is no impediment to hear the case. It is urged by him that minimal act of fairness has not been maintained inasmuch as there has been no disclosure of allegations and the law mandates reasons to be recorded. The learned counsel has commended to the requirement of section 52 to highlight that the said power has been erroneously applied in the present case and in any way it tantamounts to abuse of power. It is also propounded by him the individual irregularities if any, would attract taking of action against an individual under the other ordinary provisions of the Act, but would not warrant taking action under section 52 of the Act, as initiation of such an action in a way, indubitably tantamounts of exposition and projection of oblique motive to achieve the purpose that cannot be achieved by taking recourse to an acceptable and normal procedure. 10. Mr. R. N. Singh learned Advocate General for the State in his turn, has contended that the Vice Chancellor had involved himself in series of illegalities and keeping in view the illegalities and irregularities and the violation of the rules go a long way to show a situation of emergency has cropped up and that could not have been handled with propriety without taking action against the Vice Chancellor. It is contended by him that in the interest of the administration of the institution removal of Kulpati and appointment of another Kulpati was necessitous and therefore, no facet can be found in the action taken. It is also proponed by Mr. Singh that in certain cases individual irregularities do not remain in the individualistic realm and their contours grow to galvanize themselves into a situational atmosphere which warrants taking resort to emergency provision. 11. Though a preliminary objection was taken with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the matter was entertained and the matter has been argued on merits, I think it condign to deal with the matter on merits rather than dwell upon the territorial jurisdiction. 11. Though a preliminary objection was taken with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the matter was entertained and the matter has been argued on merits, I think it condign to deal with the matter on merits rather than dwell upon the territorial jurisdiction. To appreciate the assertions by the parties and the rivalised submissions canvassed by the learned counsel, it is essential to certain relevant provisions of the Act. Section 10 of the Act deals with ‘Inspection of University and College’. The said provision reads as under. “10 Inspection of University and College : – (1) The Kuladhipati may, on his own motion, and shall on a request made by the State Government cause an inspection to be made by such person or persons as he may direct, of the University, its buildings, laboratories, museums workshops and equipments and of any College or Institution maintained by the University or admitted to its privileges and also of the examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the University and cause an inquiry to be made in like manner in respect of any matter connected with the administration or finances of the University, Colleges or institutions. (2) The Kuladhipati shall, in every case, give notice of his intention to cause an inspection or inquiry to be made – (a) to the University, if such inspection or inquiry is to be made in respect of the University, College or Institution maintained by it; (b) to the management of the College or Institution if the inspection or inquiry is to be made in respect of a college or institution admitted to the privileges of the University, and the University or management, as the case may be, shall be entitled to appoint a representative who shall have to right to be present and be heard at such inspection or inquiry” (3) Such person shall report to the Kuladhipati the result of such inspection of inquiry and the Kuladhipati shall communicate through the Kulpati to the Executive Council or the said management, as the case may be, his views with reference to the result of such inspection or inquiry and shall after ascertaining the opinion of the Executive Council or the management thereon advise the University or the management upon the action to be taken. Provided that where an inspection or inquiry is caused on a request from the State Government the Kuladhipati shall take action under this sub-section in consultation with State Government. (4) The Executive Council or the management as the case may be, shall communicate through the Kulpati to the Kuladhipati such action, if any, as it has taken or may propose to take upon the result of such inspection or enquiry and such report shall be submitted within such time as the Kuladhipati may direct. Section 10-A which has been inserted by Amendment No. 8/1998 reads as under : “10-A: Enquiry against the Kulpati, Rector or Registrar under the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, the Kuladhipati may refer to the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt for enquiry, any complaint or allegation against Kulpati, Rector or Registrar. (2) On receiving the report of the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt, pursuant to the provisions of sub-section (1) or otherwise, the Kuladhipati may, in his discretion, take action without following the procedure laid down in sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of section 10, but in accordance with other relevant provisions of the Adhiniyam and the rules or statutes made thereunder.” 12. Section 13 provides with regard to appointment of Kulpati. The said provision stipulates that Kulpati shall be appointed by Kuladhipati from a panel of not less than three persons recommended by the Committee constituted under sub-section (2) or sub-section (6). Section 14 of the Act deals with ‘Emoluments and conditions of service of Kulpati, terms of office of and vacancy in the office of Kulpati’. It is seemly to reproduce the said provision : “14. Emoluments and Conditions of service of Kulpati, terms of office of and vacancy in the office of Kulpati : – (1) The Kulpati shall be a whole time salaried officer of the University and his emoluments and other terms and conditions of service shall be prescribed by the Statutes. (2) The Kalpati shall hold office for a term of four years and shall not be eligible for appointment for more than two terms. Provided that notwithstanding the expiry of his term he shall continue to hold office until his successor is appointed and enters upon his office but this period shall not in any case exceed six months. (2-A). (2) The Kalpati shall hold office for a term of four years and shall not be eligible for appointment for more than two terms. Provided that notwithstanding the expiry of his term he shall continue to hold office until his successor is appointed and enters upon his office but this period shall not in any case exceed six months. (2-A). The person holding office of the Kulpati in any university immediately before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1988, shall continue to hold his office till the expiry of his term of office notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso to sub-section (2). (3) If at any time upon representation made or otherwise and after making such enquiries as may be deemed necessary, it appears to the Kuladhipati that the Kulpati – (i) has made default in performing any duty imposed on him, by or under this Act; or (ii) has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the University; or (iii) is incapable for managing the affairs of the University the Kuladhipati may, notwithstanding the fact that the terms of office of the Kulpati has not expired by an order in writing stating the reasons therein, require the Kuplati to relinquish his office as from such date as may be specified in the order. (4) No order under sub-section (3) shall be passed unless the particulars of the grounds on which such action is proposed to be taken are communicated to the Kulpati and he is given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order. (5) As from the date specified in the order under sub-section (3), the Kulpati shall be deemed to have relinquish the office and the office of the Kulpati shall fall vacant. (6) In the event of the occurrence of any vacancy including a temporary vacancy in the office of the Kulpati by reason of his death, resignation, leave, illness or otherwise, the rector and if no rector has been appointed or if the rector is not available, the Dean of any faculty or the senior most Professor of University teaching department nominated by the Kuladhipati for that purpose shall act as the Kulpati until the date on which the Kulpati appointed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (7) of section 13, enters or re-enters, as the case may be, upon his office. Provided that the arrangement contemplated in this sub-section shall not continue for a period of more than six months. 13. Section 15 of the Act deals with ‘powers and duties of Kulpati’. Section 52 which is very essential for present purpose reads as under : “52. Power of State Government to apply Act in modified form with a view to provide for better administration of University in certain circumstances : – (1) If the State Government on receipt of a report or otherwise, satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, without detriment to the interests of the University, and it is expedient in the interest of the University, and it is expedient in the interest of the University so to do, it may by notification, for reason to be mentioned therein, direct that the provisions of sections 13, 15, 20 to 25, 40, 47, 18, 54 and 68 shall, as from the date specified in the notification (hereinafter in this section referred to as the appointed date), apply to the University subject to the modifications specified to the Third Schedule. (2) The notification issued under sub-section (1) (hereinafter referred to as the notification) shall remain in operation for a period of one year from the appointed date and the State Government may, from time to time, extend the period by such further period as it may think fit so however that the total period of operation of the notification does not exceed three years. (3) The Kuldhipati shall simultaneously with the issue of the notification appoint the Kulpati under sections 13 and 14 as modified and the Kulpati so appointed shall hold office during the period of operation of the notifications : Provided that the Kulpati may, notwithstanding the expiration of the period of operation of the notification continue to hold office thereafter until his successor enters upon office but this period shall not exceed one year. (4) As from the appointed date, the following consequence shall, ensue namely : – (i) during the period of operation of the notification this Act shall effect subject to the modifications specified in the Third Schedule; (ii) the Kulpatil holding office immediately before the appointed date, shall notwithstanding that his term of office has not expired, vacate his office; (iii) every person holding office as a member of the Court, the Executive Council of the Academic Council, as the case may be, immediately before the appointed date shall cease to hold that office; (iv) the student representatives of the University on the student consultative committee under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 54 immediately before the appointed date shall cease to be members of the said committee; (v) until the Court, Executive Council or Academic Council, as the case may be, is reconstituted in accordance with the provisions as modified, the Kulpati appointed under section 13 and 14 as modified shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred or imposed by or under this Act, on the Court, the Executive Council or Academic Counil; Provided that the Kuladhipati may, if he considers it necessary so to do, appoint a committee consisting of an educationist, an administrative expert and a financial expert and a financial expert to assist the Kulpati so appointed in exercise of such powers and performance of such duties. (5) Before the expiration of the period of operation of the notification or immediately as early as practicable thereafter, the Kulpati shall take steps to constitute the Court, Executive Council and Academic Council in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as unmodified and the Court, Executive Council and Academic Council as so constituted shall begin to function on the date immediately following the date of expiry if the period of operation of the notification of the date on which the respective bodies are so constituted whichever is later : Provided that if the Court, Executive council and Academic Council are not constituted before the expiration of the period of operation of the notification, the Kulpati shall on such expiration, exercise the powers of each of these authorities subject to prior approval of the Kulpati till the Court, Executive Council or Academic Council, as the case may be, is so constituted.” 14. The aforesaid provision came to be interpreted in the case of Dr. The aforesaid provision came to be interpreted in the case of Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary vs. State of M.P. and another, (1994) 4 SCC 328 . In the aforesaid case the Apex Court expressed the view as under : “Obviously for this reason, to satisfy ourselves whether the notification is founded upon any record and whether the reasons given in support thereof, are relevant to the issue, the record was summoned, and has been made available to us. The note placed before the Governor also was placed. It is an elaborate note, pregnant with the material details touching the mal-administration of the University. From the record we have seen the Government considered the above material and the Governor after due satisfaction had exercised the power under section 52(1). Though the High Court held that the action under section 52 is legislative action, it is obviously illegal in the light of the decision of this Court in S. R. Bommai vs. Union of India wherein this Court considered the presidential proclamation under Article 356 and held that the action is not beyond the ken of judicial review. The action under section 52 is only statutory action, but subject to judicial review. However, the Court would not sit in appeal over the opinion of the State Government. The statute gives power to the State Government. The Governor exercised his power with the aid and advice of the council of Ministers in statutory notification under section 52. Therefore, though it was a statutory notification, the condition precedent is that the satisfaction of the State Government i.e. the Governor with the aid and advice of the University, the Government was satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the administration of the University could not be carried on in accordance with the provision of the Adhiniyam and for better administration whereof and to prevent the detriment to the interest of the University, the State Government issued the notification “for the reasons mentioned therein” and directed that the provisions mentioned therein under sections 13 and 14 shall not apply. When those facts are present and the State Government were satisfied of the Situation contemplated under section 52(1), though the Court may differ from that formation of satisfaction when the Court is called upon in an appeal against the said satisfaction and may come to a conclusion in our judicial review under Article 136 or of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Though the Academic Council etc. had been dissolved, the correctness thereof is not the subject-matter of this special leave petition. We are not called upon to enter into that question. Therefore, from the records we are satisfied that the State Government were justified in issuing the notification under section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam.” 15. In the case of S. R. Bommai vs. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 their Lordships have expressed the opinion that the Court can go only into the question of existence of material warranting the impugned action but it cannot advert as regards to sufficiency or insufficiency of the same. 16. In the case of Narendra Kumar (supra) in paragraphs 24 and 28 expressed the view as under : “24. The provisions contained in section 52 of the Act are akin and comparable to emergency provisions contained in Article 356 of the Constitution which empower the President of India to impose his rule on the Government of a State by dissolving the elected body and assuming all functions of the Government of a State by the President. Provision under section 52 has been made to meet an emergent situation which cannot otherwise be remedied by other provisions of the Act. It is to be taken as a last resort when all other efforts on the part of the Government fail to remove the alleged mal-administration in the University. Resort to provisions of section 52 is not contemplated by the Act as a remedial measure against particular conduct or misconduct of few functionaries, high or low in the University. As has been narrated above, the events go to show that the Vice-Chancellor had been taking all necessary actions, which in fact formed basis for Limaye report, for fixing the responsibility of alleged erring officials of the University concerning financial irregularities. Opinion of the Executive Council was sought for the purpose and apparently there was no allegations against the Executive Council. Opinion of the Executive Council was sought for the purpose and apparently there was no allegations against the Executive Council. The State has not been able to justify as to why action under section 52 was necessitated when on the advice of the Chancellor the Vice-Chancellor had already called the meeting of the Executive Council on 7-3-1997. 28. Power under section 14 has been conferred for the purpose of removal of the Vice Chancellor on proved misconduct but after giving him full opportunity of hearing. The removal of a Vice-Chancellor which can be made only after following principles of natural justice under section 14 or of the Act cannot be achieved by resort to the emergency provisions. Under section 52 against the whole University of which Vice-Chancellor is one of the officers. Where the State Government as a repository of power under section 52 of the Act, exercise that power for a purpose alien to that for which it was granted it would be misuse of that power for an oblique or collateral purpose. If the purpose for which the power can legitimately by exercised are specified by statute and those purpose are construed as being exhaustive, an exercise of that power in order to achieve a different and collateral object will be pronounced as invalid. (See Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. I, IV Edn. Para 60). All statutory powers must be exercised in good faith and for the purpose for which they were granted. The repository of power must have regard to relevant considerations and not allow itself to be influenced by irrelevant considerations. It must act fairly and reasonably.” Thereafter the Court in paragraph 31 held as follows : “31. Facts and material which are relevant for taking action under section 10 or 14 of the Act cannot be utilised obliquely to obviate of by-pass observance of formalities contained therein by resorting to extraordinary emergency power under section 52 of the Act. Exercise of such emergency power at the instance of the State Government is serious inroad on the independence of the University and has in fact been counter-productive in demoralising the various officers and functionaries of the University. Exercise of such emergency power at the instance of the State Government is serious inroad on the independence of the University and has in fact been counter-productive in demoralising the various officers and functionaries of the University. Permitting misuse of extraordinary power under section 52 of the Act in the manner as has been done in this case would defeat the purpose for which such power has been conferred and would thus harm the cause of education and public interest. It would deter competent academicians from accepting assignments and posts in the University and thus seriously harm the cause of higher education.” 17. I have referred to the aforesaid decision in extenso as it has dealt with basic conception of section 52 of the Act. If anatomy of the provision is scanned it would be crystal clear that the said provision is meant to provide a better administration of University in certain circumstances and it is an emergent situation. The said power is extraordinary in nature. As has been held in the case of Narendra Kumar (supra) that such express power would deter competent academicians from accepting assignments and post in the University and may cause harm to the cause of higher education. Taking of action under the emergency provision of section 52 of the Act a different situation is warranted. An emergency has a different connotation. It is extraordinary in nature. The language in which section 52 of the Act has been couched requires a larger expanse and a bigger canvas. The action under the provision as a ‘sine qua non’ would require existence of certain circumstances for better administration of University on the bedrock that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act without detriment to the interest of the University. The power conferred by enactment on the State Government every appropriate action against an individual would not be such a one to warrant taking action by resorting to section 52 of the Act. The misdeeds and misconducts of a Vice-Chancellor are in a different realm and invoking the emergency provision under section 52 of the Act against the University as a whole is in a different spectrum. The misdeeds and misconducts of a Vice-Chancellor are in a different realm and invoking the emergency provision under section 52 of the Act against the University as a whole is in a different spectrum. The State Government has to take note of the situation in entirety and be satisfied with regard to the causation of detriment to the interest of the University. In case of continuance of (a) such a situation then only the provision can be invoked. The extraordinary power as a prequisite requires existence of such a situation. In the absence of a wider canvass only pointing to certain difficulties of the Vice-Chancellor, in my considered opinion, would not warrant taking action under section 52 of the Act. Such an action has to be exercised in a grave case and cannot be taken a routine manner. A distinction has to be drawn between the action taken against an individual under certain specific provisions and taking of action against the University in entirely by taking recourse to emergency provision. The distinction has to be borne in mind before taking such an action. It is always useful to keep in mind that emergency can be taken recourse to in exceptional cases and when there is emergence of a situation which warrants immediate, urgent and impromptu action then only such an action should be taken. Scanning of the anatomy of the provision contained under section 52 of the Act makes it absolutely luminescent that action should be taken for basic preservation of the normal atmosphere. In the absence of arising of such a situation the exercise of power under the aforesaid provision may not withstand scrutiny. The situation should be grave and in a way, irretrievable qua University winch would mar and destroy the smooth functioning of the University. At this juncture, I may hasten to clarify, in all cases actions taken by an individual cannot be regarded as embedded in the individual realm or sphere. There can be certain actions by an individual, be it the Vice-Chancellor, which can transform themselves to a situation which would be of general in nature as a consequence of which there would be compulsory conclusion that the situation has become emergent in nature and the functioning of the University would be difficult to be smoothly carried out. When and how the metamorphosis takes place it would depend upon the facts of the case. When and how the metamorphosis takes place it would depend upon the facts of the case. In the instant case irregularities and illegalities that have been pointed out by the State can be categorised into various compartments, namely, (i) financial irregularity; (ii) irregularity in the academic field; (iii) irregularity in the realm relating to conferral of degrees which eventuated in catastrophe of the students community; (iv) violation of norms prescribed by the Bar Council of India; (v) violation of University regulations; and (vi) irregularities in the sphere of appointments, I may hasten to clarify nothing has been putforth before this Court to hold that the said allegations are absolutely baseless, unfounded and reeked with mala fide except stating that there is a change of political scene. If the allegations have been taken into consideration by the State Government, then an action is warranted. I may hasten to add, some of the allegations were not there at the time of proclamation but latter on they have been revealed. But it cannot be said that there was no material at all. True it is, in the case of Narendra Kumar (supra) this Court has observed that action under section 52 of the Act should be taken as a last resort but in the said case, the Court has taken note of the Limaye Report. Hence, the view taken in the aforesaid decision is distinguishable. In my considered opinion, the view taken in the case of Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary (supra) would govern the present case inasmuch as material have been looked into by the competent authority and the notification has been issued. At this juncture, I may hasten to state that the learned Advocate General for the State in course of hearing submitted that the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case and ergo, the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain in the helm of affairs of the University. Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner did not controvert the factum of conviction but only submitted that it was a case instituted by way of a private complaint and the petitioner in criminal revision No. 449/2004, has been enlarged on bail. Be that as it may, I have noted the said factum, for the sake of completeness. 18. Be that as it may, I have noted the said factum, for the sake of completeness. 18. Ex consequenti, I am inclined to hold that the instant case exposits the phenomenon by which individual actions of the Vice-Chancellor have transformed themselves into a generalistic compartment to constitute and bring-forth a situation in which the State Government had been compelled to initiate the action under section 52 of the Act which was warranted as there was some material to support the same, and this Court cannot enter into sufficiency or insufficiency of the said material. Thus, the notification issued by the State Government does withstand close scrutiny. As a sequitur, the inevitable result is dismissal of the writ petition, which I direct. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.