Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2747 (ALL)

Satish Chaturvedi v. State of U. P.

2006-11-13

DILIP GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2006
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The University of Allahabad earlier a State University under the Provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 became a Central University under the provisions of University of Allahabad Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) which came into force w.e.f. 14th July, 2005. 2. Section 28(1) of the Act provides that the First Statutes shall be those as set out in the Schedule. Statute 30(4) of the First Statutes as set out in the Schedule provides that the Moti Lal Nehru College (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MLNC’) and Swarup Rani Nehru Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SRNH’) shall be the University Colleges. 3. The issue that has been raised by the State Government through these two applications is that Statute 30(4) of the First Statutes of the University should be amended by the Executive Council of the University so as to exclude the aforesaid MLNC and SRNH as University Colleges. 4. The Act declares the University of Allahabad as an institution of national importance. “University College” has been defined under Section 3(x) of the Act to mean a college or an institution maintained by the University or admitted to the privileges of the University as a Faculty. Under Section 7 of the Act, the University has a power to establish and maintain University Colleges for imparting instructions and conducting research. Section 28 of the Act deals with the making of the Statutes and is as follows : “28. Statutes, how to be made.—(1) The First Statutes are those set out in the Schedule. (2) The Executive Council may, from time to time, make new or additional Statutes or may amend or repeal the Statutes referred to in sub-section (1): Provided that the Executive Council shall not make, amend or repeal any Statute affecting the status, powers or constitution of any authority of the University until such authority has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion in writing on the proposed changes, and any opinion so expressed shall be considered by the Executive Council. (3) Every new Statute or addition to the Statutes or any amendment or repeal of a Statute shall require the assent of the Visitor who may assent thereto or withhold assent or remit to the Executive Council for reconsideration. (3) Every new Statute or addition to the Statutes or any amendment or repeal of a Statute shall require the assent of the Visitor who may assent thereto or withhold assent or remit to the Executive Council for reconsideration. (4) A new Statute or a Statute amending or repealing an existing Statute shall have no validity unless it has been assented to by the Visitor. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, the Visitor may make new or additional Statutes, or amend or repeal the Statutes referred to in sub-section (1), during the period of three years immediately after the commencement of this Act : Provided that the Visitor may, on the expiry of the said period of three years, make, within one year from the date of such expiry, such detailed Statutes as he may consider necessary and such detailed Statutes shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the Visitor may direct the University to make provisions in the Statutes in respect of any matter specified by him and if the Executive Council is unable to implement such direction within sixty days of its receipt, the Visitor may, after considering the reasons, if any, communicated by the Executive Council for its inability to comply with such direction, make or amend the Statutes suitably.“ 5. Statute 14 of the First Statute of the University deals with the Faculties and Departments. The Faculty of Medicine is one of the Faculty mentioned in Statute 14(1). Under Statute 14(6) the Faculty of Medicine consists of various Departments namely—Anaesthesia, Anatomy, Cardiology, Ear, Nose and Throat, Forensic Medicine, Medicine, Microbiology, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ophthalmology, Orthopaedics, Peadiatrics, Pathology and Bacteriology, Pharmacy, Pharmacology, Physiology, Radiology, Social and Preventive Medicine, Surgery and Tuberculosis. 6. As seen above, the First Statutes of the University of Allahabad declares the MLNC and SRNH as University Colleges. The University College is an institution maintained by the University or admitted to the privilege of the University as a Faculty. The Act came into force w.e.f. 14th July, 2005 and, therefore, with effect from that date both MLNC and SRNH became University Colleges. The University College is an institution maintained by the University or admitted to the privilege of the University as a Faculty. The Act came into force w.e.f. 14th July, 2005 and, therefore, with effect from that date both MLNC and SRNH became University Colleges. This position was also clarified by the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource and Development in the communication dated 23rd January, 2006, wherein it was clearly stated that as they were University Colleges, it was for the University to decide whether it wants to maintain them or to admit them to the privileges of the University College. The letter further mentions that the Ministry had already decided to bring the University along with its constituent units within the ambit of Central Government funding and in case the University decides to maintain the MLNC and SRNH as University College, it would be funded by the Ministry through the University Grants Commission on 100% basis but if the University decides to admit MLNC and SRNH to its privileges as University Colleges, it will do so on its own terms and conditions and the Ministry would have no role to play in this regard. It is for this reason that on 17th February, 2006 we had passed an order requiring the Executive Council of the University to take a decision in respect of the aforesaid matter. However, even prior to the passing of the aforesaid order, the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 24th December, 2005 had constituted a high powered committee consisting of Prof. Janak Pandey, Prof. H. N. Tiwari and Dr. Sunit Vyas to examine and report on the issue of the status of the MLNC including SRNH which had been specified in the Act as a University College. The first meeting of the aforesaid Committee was held on 16th January, 2006 and the second meeting was held on 24th January, 2006. The Committee recommended as follows : (i) The Executive Council may request the Central Government/UGC for expeditiously initiating (and pursuing with the State Government) appropriate steps towards the transfer of the MLN Medical College (including the SRN Hospital) and the SPM Government College from maintenance by the State Government to funding by the Central Government or its agencies. The Committee recommended as follows : (i) The Executive Council may request the Central Government/UGC for expeditiously initiating (and pursuing with the State Government) appropriate steps towards the transfer of the MLN Medical College (including the SRN Hospital) and the SPM Government College from maintenance by the State Government to funding by the Central Government or its agencies. (ii) Under the proposed new dispensation, the MLN Medical College (including the SRN Hospital) and the SPM Government College, each, should be governed by a Society, to be organised on the pattern of the Societies of similar institutions in the Central sector. (iii) Such of the present faculty (including Principal) and other employees, but excluding contractual engagees and non-regular personnel of all categories, of the MLN Medical College (including the SRN Hospital) and the SPM Government College, as were posted there on 13.7.2005 (i.e. the day immediately before the date on which the Central Act was enforced) and receiving salary from the State Government Treasury on that date, and are continuing there in the same capacity, shall be eligible to continue as employees of the aforementioned Society in question, but each of them shall have the option to revert to the service of the State Government and get transferred to other institutions of the State. (iv) No new appointment/posting shall be made on the existing posts of the MLN Medical College (including the SRN Hospital) and the SPM Government College that were vacant on (or rendered vacant after) 14.7.2005, except in accordance with the recruitment and appointment mechanism laid down by the aforementioned Society with the approval of the Central Government/UGC/University. (v) A perspective plan for organisational rationality of the SRN Hospital, and the early development/expansion of the clinical/infrastructural facilities there for the MLN Medical College’s specialities of Pediatrics and Ophthalmology (and allied branches), which are presently located in other associated Hospitals of the MLN Medical College, may be drawn up and the budgetary implications thereof may be worked out. (vi) It may be essential to ensure that the total annual (Non-Plan) budgetary requirements for the MLN Medical College and the SRN Hospital are provided from an appropriate Central source (including the Department of Health or a relevant agency of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare), additional to the grants for the University, for otherwise they would trench upon the allocations made/earmarked for the University from the Consolidated Fund of India. 7. The Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 21st March, 2006 considered the aforesaid report of the Committee and the main conclusions of the members indicated in the resolution of the Executive Council are as follows: (a) The members stressed the fact that the Motilal Nehru Medical College had, ever since its establishment, evolved as an integral part of the University, constituting its Faculty of Medicine, and the University of Allahabad Act, 2005, had underscored this fact by retaining its position as the Faculty of Medicine of the University and giving it a special designation as a University College, and it was appropriate and in fact imperative to strengthen this character and reinforce its close linkage and relationship with the University. (b) The members were in agreement with the finding of the Committee, in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 4A thereof, that the efficacious discharge of the duties of the University requires an academic system that is unreservedly directed towards the fulfilment of its objects, irrespective of the concerns and policies of the Government, and the presence of institutions wholly maintained by the State Government within the academic ambit of the University is bound to be inconsonant with the desirable integrity of the academic system and its collective commitment to the objects of the University. (c) The members were also in agreement with the finding of the Committee, in sub-paragraphs (ii) and (v) of paragraph 4A thereof, that the exercise of academic cooperation and the pursuit of synergy within different ‘institutions admitted to the privileges of the University’ and between the University and such institutions, individually and collectively is a necessity, and such cooperation and synergy are now an imperative necessity for optimum allocation and application of material resources and coordination of academic expertise, and further that the Motilal Nehru Medical College and Swarup Rani Nehru Hospital require major capital investment and organisational rationality in order to enable them to fulfil their potential and obligations as entities committed to providing quality medical services and care and undertaking high-level research in the Medical and allied Sciences, for advancing the well-being of the people, regionally and nationally, and these objectives can be more effectively pursued and attained under funding by the Central Government or its agencies, particularly in the context of the stated policy objective of the Central Government to promote/develop medical institutions of the level of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in different parts of the country. (d) The members welcomed and appreciated the view of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, as recorded in the aforementioned letter, dated January 23, 2006, presented before the Hon’ble High Court, that: “So far as the Ministry is concerned, it has already been decided to bring the University along with its constituent units within the ambit of Central Government funding and in case the University decides to maintain the MNMC-SRNH [Motilal Nehru Medical College and Swarup Rani Nehru Hospital] as a University College, it would be funded by the Ministry through UGC [University Grants Commission] on 100% basis. On the other hand, if the University decides to admit MNMC-SRNH to its privileges as a University College, it may do so on its own terms and conditions and the Ministry has no role to play in this regard. On the other hand, if the University decides to admit MNMC-SRNH to its privileges as a University College, it may do so on its own terms and conditions and the Ministry has no role to play in this regard. The Executive Council of the University is also empowered to amend the relevant Statutes, with the assent of the Visitor, under Section 28(2) of the University of Allahabad Act, 2005.“ (e) The members felt that once the decks are cleared for the Motilal Nehru Medical College and the Swarup Rani Nehru Hospital to be wholly funded by the Central Government, it would not be necessary to constitute a Society, as recommended in the said Report, and it would be appropriate to consult a body of experts to develop the administrative mechanism for the University College. 8. The Executive Council, therefore, resolved : “that the Report of the aforementioned Committee, constituted under the Convenorship of Prof. Janak Pandey (vide APPENDIX D), be endorsed, subject to the conclusions at (d) and (e), above, and be followed up appropriately, and the Hon’ble High Court be apprised that the Executive Council affirms the submission of the Ministry of Human Resource Development that the Motilal Nehru Medical College and Swarup Rani Nehru Hospital be maintained as a University College wholly funded by the Central Government, without trenching upon the allocations required from the Central Government, directly or through the UGC, for the proper maintenance and development of the University and other Institutions admitted to its privileges." 9. The Executive Council further resolved : “that the Vice-Chancellor may consult a body of experts for developing an appropriate mechanism for the administration of the Motilal Nehru Medical College and Swarup Rani Nehru Hospital as a University College constituting the Faculty of Medicine, and promoting organisational rationality and further development of specialties in the Swarup Rani Nehru Hospital, upon their transfer to Central funding, and such of their present faculty (including Principal) and other employees, excluding contractual engagees and non-regular personnel of all categories, as were posted there on 13.7.2005 (i.e. the day immediately before the date on which the Central Act was enforced) and receiving salary from the State Government Treasury on that date, and are continuing there in the same capacity, shall be eligible to continue as employees of the University college, but each of them shall have the option to revert to the service of the State Government and get transferred to other Institutions of the State.“ 10. A perusal of the aforesaid resolution of the Executive Council clearly indicates that the Executive Council of the University took a decision that MLNC and SRNH shall be maintained as “University College” wholly funded by the Central Government without trenching upon the allocations required from the Central Government, directly or through the University Grants Commission, and that the Vice-Chancellor was required to consult a body of experts for developing an appropriate mechanism for their administration as a “University College”. 11. It is, therefore, clear that even prior to the passing of any order by us, the Executive Council in its meeting held on 24th December, 2005 had constituted a Committee to examine the said matter and submit its report which it did on 24th January, 2006. By our order dated 17th February, 2006, we had merely required the Executive Council to take a decision regarding the aforesaid fact and in the meeting held on 21st March, 2006, the Executive Council took the decision. In our order dated 28th April, 2006, we had, after taking notice of the said decision taken by the Executive Council, mentioned that the Executive Council had decided that MLNC and SRNH shall be maintained as University College wholly funded by the Central Government. In our order dated 28th April, 2006, we had, after taking notice of the said decision taken by the Executive Council, mentioned that the Executive Council had decided that MLNC and SRNH shall be maintained as University College wholly funded by the Central Government. We had also mentioned that since the learned Standing Counsel had not been informed of any contrary view, it should be presumed that the State Government had no objection to the decision taken by the Central Government and the Executive Council. We may straightaway mention at this stage that it was for the Executive Council to maintain the MLNC and SRNH as University College or to admit them to the privileges as University Colleges and we had at no point of time asked for the views of the State Government regarding exclusion of MLNC and SRNH as University Colleges. 12. The State Government then moved the application dated 7th July, 2006 with the following prayer : “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify the order dated 28.4.2006 passed by this Hon’ble Court to the extent that the Executive Council of Allahabad University may be directed to consider the objection as framed and filed by the State Government as intimated by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, New Delhi, and/or to pass such other and further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.“ 13. In the said application, emphasis was placed on the communication dated 8th August, 2005 sent by the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to the Secretary, Department of Secondary & Higher Education, Government of India wherein the views of the State Government that the Allahabad Medical College and its allied Hospitals should continue to remain under the administrative jurisdiction of the State Government was conveyed. It was also stated that the State Government had approached the Executive Council of the University by making a representation that the MLNC and its allied Hospitals may be excluded from the Allahabad University and it may be permitted to remain under the control of the State Government. However, after arguing the matter for sometime, the learned Advocate General withdrew the application. 14. The next meeting of the Executive Council of the University was held on 23rd May, 2006. However, after arguing the matter for sometime, the learned Advocate General withdrew the application. 14. The next meeting of the Executive Council of the University was held on 23rd May, 2006. The Executive Council of the University after referring to the earlier resolution taken in the meeting held on 21st March, 2006 and the order passed by this Court on 28th April, 2006 constituted a Committee of Experts to be called the ‘Steering Committee’ to give effect to the resolution dated 21st March, 2006. This Committee was required to make recommendations regarding the necessary steps to be taken for ensuring the orderly transition of the University College maintained by the University. The Steering Committee in its report observed as follows : “The Committee and particularly the expert members highly appreciated the action taken by the University to integrate M.L.N.M.C. and S.R.N.H. as the University College and its hospital under full financial support of the Central Government. The Committee appreciated various efforts of the University such as resolutions taken by the Executive Council in its meeting, and for apprising the State Government and U.G.C. regarding integrating M.L.N.M.C. and S.R.N.H. as the University College fully controlled by the University with the Central Government funding to achieve the larger objectives related to quality Medical Education, Research and Health Care. (i) The Committee further noted that the proceeding and observations by the Hon’ble High Court unambiguously substantiate that due to poor and irregular funding and other factors both the College and Hospital are in deplorable condition. The Committee supporting the decision of the Executive Council, resolved that M.L.N.M.C. and S.R.N.H. should be fully integrated University College with adequate funding from the Central Government and under direct control of the University for academic, administrative, and financial matters essential for developing the institution to achieve a level of quality comparable to national level institutions to impart quality medical education, and to provide health services in this part of the Country which is deprived of quality health care. (ii) The Committee also discussed recently announced policy of the Central Government to create a number of A.I.I.M.S. like national institutions and to enlarge teaching and research infrastructures and faculty strength, to accommodate greater number of students to cope with O.B.C. reservation (to be introduced in Central Institutions in 2007) and resolved to request all concerns, the U.P. State Government, H.R.D. Ministry of the Central Government, and the U.G.C., New Delhi to take a positive approach for completing all formalities so that the M.L.N.M.C. and S.R.N.H. get properly integrated as the University College of the University and to release adequate grant as per the norms of A.I.I.M.S. for M.L.N.M.C. and S.R.N.H. (iii) The Committee also suggested that the governance of the University College (M.L.N.M.C. and S.R.N.H.) should be on the pattern of the A.I.I.M.S. by a Governing Body consisting of professionals. The Government Body may constitute Standing Finance/Administrative Advisory Committees for efficient functioning. The Committee members, however, felt that it was critically important that the all concerned should first agree for smooth transition of the present institution from the U.P. State administered and funded Medical College to the University College to facilitate drawing of a road map for its all round development as well as administrative mechanism. ........................... (7) The Committee discussed present status and requirements of the M.L.N.M.C. and S.R.N.H. to develop it as a modern state-of-the-art institution. The following suggestions were made : (a) For proper development of the institutions which may rise to the level of A.I.I.M.S. in future requires that both M.L.N.M.C. and S.R.N.H. should be directly under the administrative and academic control of the University with adequate Central funding. Unitary Administrative Control is a must for the development of the institution. (b) The College and the Hospital do not have even minimum of facility and therefore the first task should be to provide a liberal special grant to raise the standard so that it becomes at par with other good national institutions. (c) To raise the standard of both M.L.N.M.C. and S.R.N.H. to the standard of National level Institute, the research facilities which have been negligible due to lack of fund must be raised in progressive manner. Requirements of each department must be assessed and a Professional Visiting Committee should be appointed as a later stage to decide the necessary grant for each department.” 15. Requirements of each department must be assessed and a Professional Visiting Committee should be appointed as a later stage to decide the necessary grant for each department.” 15. It is at this stage that Application No. 210132 of 2006 dated 4th October, 2006 was moved on behalf of the State Government containing the following prayer : “It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to modify/clarify the orders dated 7th July, 2006, 21st July, 2006 and 25th August, 2006 passed by the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta to the extent that it may be clarified that while permitting the withdrawal of the application on 7th July, 2006 moved for modification of the order dated 28th April, 2006 this Hon’ble Court had not precluded the right of pursuing the representation moved on behalf of the State under Section 28 of Allahabad University Act, 2005 nor was Executive Council of Allahabad University authorized to refuse the consideration of the representation in view of the orders dated 7th July, 2006, 21st July, 2006 and 25th August, 2006 passed by the aforenoted Bench.” 16. We had heard the learned Advocate General in support of the application dated 4th October, 2006 and permitted him to press his objections in the Court which were raised in the application dated 7th July, 2006 and the State was also given liberty to file the same application or modified application in this regard within two days. Subsequently the State moved another application dated 16th October, 2006 bearing number 223113 of 2006 containing the following prayer : “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify the orders dated 28th April, 2006, 7th July, 2006, 21st July, 2006 and 25th August, 2006 passed by the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta. This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to modify/clarify the aforesaid orders directing that the right of pursuing the representation moved on behalf of the State of U.P. Under Section 28 of Allahabad University Act, 2005 before Executive Council of Allahabad University is not precluded. Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta. This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to modify/clarify the aforesaid orders directing that the right of pursuing the representation moved on behalf of the State of U.P. Under Section 28 of Allahabad University Act, 2005 before Executive Council of Allahabad University is not precluded. The Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to issue direction to the Executive Council of Allahabad University to take steps for delinking Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and its affiliated three hospitals from the ambit of Act No. 26 of 2006 viz. Allahabad University Act, 2006 and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem, fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, otherwise the State Government shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury.“ 17. These two applications have come up for orders before us. 18. A perusal of the application filed earlier which was withdrawn on 7th July, 2006 shows that the prayer that had been made was to modify the order dated 28th April, 2006 passed by this Court to the extent that the Executive Council of the University may be directed to consider the objections filed by the State Government. The learned Advocate General pointed out that the objections that had been filed by the State Government before the Executive Council of the University were for amendment of Statute 30 (4) of the first Statutes of the University by deleting the MLNC and SRNH as University Colleges and in support of his contention he placed reliance upon Section 28 of the Act, which provides that the Executive Council can amend or repeal the Statutes. 19. In the application dated 4th October, 2006, a clarification was sought by the State Government that the withdrawal of the application on 7th July, 2006 for modification of the order dated 28th April, 2006 should not preclude its right of pursuing the representation filed by it under Section 28 of the Act and that the Executive Council of the University was also not authorised to refuse the consideration of the representation in view of the orders dated 7th July, 2006, 21st July, 2006 and 25th August, 2006. By the application dated 16th October, 2006 the State Government further prayed that a direction should be issued to the Executive Council of the University to take steps to delink the MLNC and its affiliated three hospitals from the ambit of the Act. 20. The reason indicated by the learned Advocate General for modifying the order dated 28th April, 2006 was that the representation filed by the State Government before the Executive Council of the University for amendment of the Statute 30(4) was not being considered because in the order dated 28th April, 2006 we had mentioned that as the learned Standing Counsel had not been informed of any contrary view, it should be presumed that the State Government had no objection to the decision taken by the Central Government and the Executive Council of the University. 21. The basic submission of the learned Advocate General is that the Executive Council of the University should consider the representation filed by the State Government for amending Statute 30(4) of the First Statutes of the University, so that MLNC and SRNH do not remain as University Colleges. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the Executive Council in exercise of its power under Section 28(2) of the Act amended the First Statutes of the University by delinking the Kamla Nehru Post Graduate Medical Institute, Allahabad and the Harish Chandra Research Institute both of which were mentioned as Constituent Institute under Statutes 30(5) of the First Statutes of the University and, therefore, the same exercise should be resorted to by the Executive Council of the University in respect of the MLNC and SRNH. He also submitted that under Section 8(2) of the Act all Institutes admitted to the privileges of, or maintained by the University of Allahabad under the provisions of the State Act of 1973 shall stand admitted to the privileges of, or maintained by the University and shall be governed by such conditions as may be prescribed by the Statutes and, therefore, as MLNC was earlier mentioned as Constituent College it should have been declared a Constituent College under the provisions of the First Statutes of the University. 22. Sri P. S. Baghel, learned Counsel appearing for the Allahabad University has strongly refuted the aforesaid contention of the learned Advocate General. 22. Sri P. S. Baghel, learned Counsel appearing for the Allahabad University has strongly refuted the aforesaid contention of the learned Advocate General. He contended that under the First Statutes of the Allahabad University framed by the Parliament, MLNC and SRNH have been declared as University Colleges and that even prior to the passing of any order by this Court, the Committee which had been constituted pursuant to the resolution of the Executive Council in the meeting held on 24th December, 2005 had recommended for maintenance of these two institutions from the funding by the Central Government and the Executive Council in its meeting held on 21st March, 2006 also accepted the said report and resolved that MLNC and SRNH be maintained as University College wholly funded by the Central Government. It is this fact which had been noticed by this Court in the order dated 28th April, 2006 and, therefore, the submission of learned Advocate General that the representation filed by the State Government for amendment of the Statute was not being considered by the University because of the order dated 28th April, 2006 passed by this Court, is wholly misconceived. He further submitted that the power to amend the Statutes is entirely with the Executive Council of the University under Section 28(2) of the Act or with the Visitor of the University under Section 28(5) of the Act and, therefore, the question of considering any representation by the State Government does not arise at all. He, therefore, submitted that in such circumstances this Court may not issue any direction to the Executive Council to take a decision on the representation of the State Government for amendment of the Statutes. Sri Baghel also submitted that merely because the Executive Council of the University had amended the Statutes in so far as the Kamla Nehru Post Graduate Medical Institute and Harish Chandra Research Institute are concerned, a direction cannot be issued to the Executive Council to amend the Statutes by delinking the MLNC and SRNH particularly when their cases stand on an entirely different footing as explained in the counter affidavit filed by the University. 23. We find considerable force in the submissions advanced by Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Counsel appearing for the Allahabad University. Under Statute 30(4) of the First Statutes of the University, the MLNC and SRNH have been mentioned as University Colleges. 23. We find considerable force in the submissions advanced by Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Counsel appearing for the Allahabad University. Under Statute 30(4) of the First Statutes of the University, the MLNC and SRNH have been mentioned as University Colleges. The records indicate that prior to coming into force of the Central Act, the Ministry of Human Resources had sent a communication dated 6th August, 2004 to the State Government and the same is reproduced as below : “As you might be aware a proposal for conversion of the University of Allahabad as a Central University is under active consideration of this Ministry. In this connection a number of representations/memoranda from various stake-holding groups in the University of Allahabad and its Associated Colleges about the relationship of the Associated Colleges with the University after its conversion into a Central University have been received in the Ministry. 2. In view of these representations/memoranda a process of wider consultation has been started by the Ministry. A two-member committee was deputed by the Ministry to Allahabad on 21.7.2004 which heard the submissions of, and held extensive discussions with, a wide range of stake holders. This committee has since submitted its report and has inter-alia recommended as under : (i) The Government should take over the State Government maintained Motilal Nehru Medical College, alongwith the adjunct hospital, and Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Government Degree College, in consultation with the State Government. (ii) Gobind Vallabh Pant Social Sciences Institute should also be considered for Central Government support. We shall be grateful if you could kindly let us have the considered views of the State Government on the above recommendations expeditiously so as to enable us to take a view in this regard.“ 24. The learned Advocate General has not placed on record any document whatsoever which may have been sent by the State Government to the Ministry of Human Resources & Development prior to the coming into force of the Act. In fact the letter dated 8th August, 2005 sent by the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to the Secretary, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Government of India clearly shows that for the first time, reply was sent to the aforesaid letter on 8th August, 2005 after the Act had come into force. In fact the letter dated 8th August, 2005 sent by the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to the Secretary, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Government of India clearly shows that for the first time, reply was sent to the aforesaid letter on 8th August, 2005 after the Act had come into force. The said letter is reproduced below : “Kindly refer to your letter No. F-32-2/204-Desk (U) dated 6-8-2004 regarding conversion of Allahabad University into a Central University. With respect to the above, I would like to bring to your notice that presently, for the students of U.P., the admission capacity for M.B.B.S. and P.G.M.E. courses in the Government Medical Colleges are woefully inadequate. This would further reduce after the transfer of Allahabad Medical College to the Central University. The matter has been considered by the State Government and it has been decided that the Allahabad Medical College should continue to remain under the administrative jurisdiction of the State Government. In view of the above, I would request that the Allahabad Medical College and its allied hospital should be allowed to remain under the administrative jurisdiction of the State Government." You are, therefore, requested to take necessary action in this regard under intimation of the State Government.“ 25. The only decision that was required to be taken by the Executive Council of the University was whether MLNC and SRNH were to be maintained by the University so that it can be funded by the Central Government on 100% basis. It is this decision which the Executive Council of the University took on 21st March, 2006. Nothing has been brought on record by the State Government to show that at any point of time, the Executive Council of the University had decided to consider the proposal of the State Government for amendment of Statute 30(4). The contention of the learned Advocate General that the Executive Council of the University is not considering the representation for amendment of the aforesaid Statute because of the order dated 28th April, 2006 passed by us, is, therefore, totally misconceived. 26. Learned Advocate General placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Gazi v. State of M.P. and others, JT 2000(4) SC 55; MR. Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Mr. 26. Learned Advocate General placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Gazi v. State of M.P. and others, JT 2000(4) SC 55; MR. Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Mr. Kumar and others, JT 2005 (10) SC 1, in support of his contention that the act of Court should prejudice no person. The said decisions have no application to the facts of this case as we have found that the Executive Council was not considering any proposal regarding amendment of the First Statutes. The learned Advocate General also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and others, JT 2005(6) SC 60, in support of his contention that the decision taken by the Statutory Authority at the behest or on the suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play would be ultra-vires. This case, in our opinion, helps the University inasmuch as no role has been assigned to the State Government under Section 28 of the Act for making any representation to the Executive Council for amendment of the Statutes. 27. It is not in dispute that the representation which the State Government desires to be considered by the Executive Council of the University is with respect to the amendment of the First Statutes. In our considered opinion, the power that is to be exercised by the Executive Council of the University under Section 28(2) of the Act is a legislative power. Two issues that would arise for our consideration are whether the Executive Council of the University is bound to consider the representation filed by the State Government and whether the Court can issue any direction to the Executive Council of the University to amend the First Statutes. 28. A perusal of Section 28(2) of the Act shows that the Executive Council may, from time to time, make new or additional Statutes or may amend or repeal the Statutes referred to in sub-section (1). In sub-section (1) of Section 28, the First Statutes have been mentioned to be those as set out in the Schedule. 28. A perusal of Section 28(2) of the Act shows that the Executive Council may, from time to time, make new or additional Statutes or may amend or repeal the Statutes referred to in sub-section (1). In sub-section (1) of Section 28, the First Statutes have been mentioned to be those as set out in the Schedule. The proviso to Section 28(2) stipulates that the Executive Council shall not make, amend or repeal any Statute affecting the status, powers or constitution of any Authority of the University until such Authority has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion in writing on the proposed changes, and any opinion so expressed shall be considered by the Executive Council. It is, therefore, more than apparent that only, when the Executive Council proposes to make any amendment in the Statutes affecting the status, powers or constitution of any Authority of the University that such an Authority is required to be given an opportunity of expressing its opinion in writing and such opinion has necessarily to be considered by the Executive Council. The Authorities of the University have been enumerated in Section 20 of the Act as ‘The Court, The Executive Council, The Academic Council, The Boards of Faculties and The Finance Committees’. The legislation in its wisdom has provided for consideration of the representation of an Authority of the University only and, therefore, by necessary implication representation in other matters is not required to be considered. In view of the aforesaid provisions, we are of the clear opinion that the Executive Council of the University is not obliged to consider the representation of the State Government for making any amendment in the First Statutes. 29. In this connection, we may also refer to certain decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the right of hearing before enactment of any law. 30. In M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt. and others, JT 1998 (7) SC 532 the Supreme Court observed : “Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that before raising the national and festival holidays from their original number under the Parent Act, to the number of days contemplated by the Amending Act, the industries or their representative should have been given an opportunity of hearing. This argument is wholly untenable. Principles of natural justice cannot be imported in the matter of legislative action. This argument is wholly untenable. Principles of natural justice cannot be imported in the matter of legislative action. If the Legislature, in exercise of its plenary power under Article 245 of the Constitution, proceeds to enact a law, those who would be affected by that law cannot legally raise a grievance that before the law was made, they should have been given an opportunity of hearing. This principle may, in limited cases, be invoked in the case of sub-ordinate legislation specially where the main legislation itself lays down that before the sub-ordinate legislation is made, a public notice shall be given and objections shall be invited as is usually the case, for example, in the making of municipal bye-laws. But the Principles of Natural Justice, including right of hearing, cannot be invoked in the making of law either by the Parliament or by the State Legislature.“ (emphasis supplied) 31. In Union of India and another v. Cynamide India Ltd. and another, AIR 1987 SC 1802 , the Supreme Court observed : “The second observation we wish to make is, legislative action, plenary or subordinate, is not subject to rules of natural justice. In the case of Parliamentary legislation, the proposition is self-evident. In the case of subordinate legislation, it may happen that Parliament may itself provide for a notice and for a hearing. There are several instances of the legislature requiring the subordinate legislating authority to give public notice and a public hearing before say, for example, levying a municipal rate—, in which case the substantial non-observance of the statutorily prescribed mode of observing natural justice may have the effect of invalidating the subordinate legislation. The right here given to rate payers or others is in the nature of a concession which is not to detract from the character of the activity as legislative and not quasi-judicial. But, where the legislature has not chosen to provide for any notice or hearing, no one can insist upon it and it will not be permissible to read natural justice into such legislative activity.“ (emphasis supplied) 32. We must also remind ourselves of the observations made by the Supreme Court that Courts cannot issue directions to a legislative body to amend the law. 33. In M/s. Narinder Chand Hem Raj and others v. Lt. We must also remind ourselves of the observations made by the Supreme Court that Courts cannot issue directions to a legislative body to amend the law. 33. In M/s. Narinder Chand Hem Raj and others v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, H.P. and others, AIR 1971 SC 2399 the Supreme Court observed: “................What the appellant really wants is a mandate from the Court to the competent authority to delete the concerned entry from Schedule B. We shall not go into the question whether the Government of Himachal Pradesh on its own authority was competent to make the alteration in question or not. We shall assume for our present purpose that it had such a power. The power to impose a tax is undoubtedly a legislative power. That power can be exercised by the legislature directly or subject to certain conditions, the legislature may delegate that power to some other authority. But the exercise of that power, whether by the legislature or by its delegate is an exercise of a legislative power. The fact that the power was delegated to the executive does not convert that power into an executive or administrative power. No Court can issue a mandate to a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly no Court can direct a subordinate legislative body to enact or not to enact a law which it may be competent to enact...............” 34. In Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India and another, (1989) 4 SCC187 the Supreme Court observed : “There can be no doubt that no Court can direct a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly, when an executive authority exercises a legislative power by way of subordinate legislation pursuant to the delegated authority of a legislature, such executive authority cannot be asked to enact a law which he has been empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority.” 35. In State of Jammu & Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki and others, AIR 1992 SC 1546 , the Supreme Court observed as under : “................A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact a particular legislation. Same is true as regards the executive when it exercises the power to make rules, which are in the nature of subordinate legislation............” 36. A direction cannot, therefore, be issued to the Executive Council to consider the representation filed by the State Government for amending the First Statutes. 37. Same is true as regards the executive when it exercises the power to make rules, which are in the nature of subordinate legislation............” 36. A direction cannot, therefore, be issued to the Executive Council to consider the representation filed by the State Government for amending the First Statutes. 37. The contention of the learned Advocate General regarding discrimination vis-a-vis the Kamla Nehru Post Graduate Medical Institute Allahabad and the Harish Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad cannot also be accepted. The Executive Council in its wisdom made amendments in Statutes 30(5) of the First Statutes of the University but that cannot be made a ground to compel the Executive Council of the University to make amendment in Statutes 30(4) of the First Statutes of the University. This apart, in the counter affidavit filed by the University it has been stated that the Kamla Nehru PG Institute, Allahabad is a non entity. For becoming a Constituent Institute the Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital was expected to establish it and as they decided not to do it, and, therefore, the Executive Council rightfully delinked it and the Harish Chandra Institute was included in the Act to enrich, but later it was discovered that it had already become constituent unit of the Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai a Deemed University under Atomic Energy Commission, Government of India. 38. The submission of the learned Advocate General that as the MLNC was a Constituent College of the University under the State Universities Act it should have continued as a Constituent College of the University under the provisions of the Central Act, 2005 particularly in view of the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act cannot also be accepted. It was for the legislation in its wisdom to determine whether a particular College/Institute should be a University College or not and under Statutes 30(4) of the First Statutes of the University the MLNC and SRNH have been declared as University Colleges. 39. For all the reasons stated above, the applications filed by the State Government are misconceived and are liable to be rejected and are, accordingly, rejected. Application Rejected. ————