ORDER Petitioner which is a University established under the provisions of The Visvesvaraya Technological University Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `Act’ for short) is calling in question notification dated 19.12.2014 Annexure-A issued by Governor of Karnataka and Chancellor of Universities in Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 11(1) and (2) of the Act whereunder Sri. Justice Ajit J. Gunjal, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka has been appointed as one man fact finding committee to enquire into the allegations made in the complaints which has been received by the Chancellor alleging irregularities and mismanagement at the petitioner-University (for short `VTU’). 2. I have heard the arguments of Sri. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. K.S. Bharath Kumar, Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. M.B. Naragund, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Mahesh Wodeyar, Advocate for respondent. 3. The Chancellor of petitioner-University is said to have received complaints from various persons regarding alleged irregularities and mismanagement in the recruitment of 168 teaching posts and awarding civil works and purchases in VTU and having felt necessary to verify the facts about alleged irregularities and mismanagement of VTU, one man fact finding committee came to be appointed to enquire into said allegations with the terms of reference as indicated in the notification dated 19.12.2014, Annexure-A. 4. Assailing the said notification and contending inter-alia that neither Section 11 nor any other provision in the Act confers power on the Chancellor to appoint such committee to investigate into any irregularities, same is sought for being quashed. It is also the contention of the petitioner that under Section 9 of the Act, even for the State Government to exercise the power to issue instructions to University, it is incumbent on the State Government to first call upon the University to offer its explanation and on explanation being offered by the University, if found unsatisfactory then State Government with the concurrence of the Chancellor can issue instructions to the University as may be desirable and necessary for giving effect to those instructions and Chancellor has no independent power to act on his own and appoint a committee to enquire into alleged irregularities even under Section 9 of the Act. It is also contended that neither Section 11 nor any other provision in the Act confers power on the Chancellor to appoint any committee to investigate into any irregularities of petitioner-University. 5. Statement of objections having been filed by the respondent, contentions raised in the writ petition has been denied. It is contended that petitioner-University is not an aggrieved person and no legal or constitutional right of the University is violated and as such writ petition is not maintainable. It is also contended no resolution having been passed by the University authorising the Registrar to initiate the proceedings against Chancellor, Writ Petition is not maintainable since both Chancellor and Registrar being officers of the University as defined under Section 10 of the Act, present proceedings cannot be initiated by the Registrar against the Chancellor without obtaining previous sanction of the Executive Council. It is further contended that Chancellor being the appointing authority for appointment of Vice Chancellor, Executive Council and Academic Senate, he has the power under Sections 50, 53 and 54 of the Act to appoint one man committee and said power of the Chancellor is wide and it is a superintendence power and as such appointment of one man fact finding committee is not illegal. Hence, respondent has sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, appearing for the petitioner-university has contented that Section 9 of the Act confers power on the State Government to call upon the Executive Council of the University to offer explanation and on receipt of the said explanation if in the opinion of the State Government such explanation being unsatisfactory, it can with the concurrence of the Chancellor issue such instructions and in this direction State can exercise such power as may be necessary to give effect to those instructions. Hence, he contends that Chancellor has no independent power to either call for explanation from the University or order for constitution of a fact finding committee. He would submit that power of the Chancellor is delineated under Section 11 of the Act namely sub-section (1) to subsection (4) and any exercise of power beyond what has been prescribed under the Act is to be struck down by this court as one without authority, jurisdiction and as such impugned notification would be ultra vires of his powers. He would submit that power of the Chancellor is delineated under Section 11 of the Act namely sub-section (1) to subsection (4) and any exercise of power beyond what has been prescribed under the Act is to be struck down by this court as one without authority, jurisdiction and as such impugned notification would be ultra vires of his powers. He would submit that neither Section 11 nor any other provision under the Act empowers the Chancellor who is a statutory authority to order for enquiry in respect of petitioner-university; such power which can be exercised by the State Government under Section 9 of the Act and that too after calling for explanation from VTU only by restricting itself to issue directions to the University to comply with the directions issued by it and nothing beyond it; impugned notification is ultra vires of the Act namely, without jurisdiction and void in law. 7. He would also elaborate his submission to contend that under Section 53(2) of the Act there cannot be any implied or inherent power which can be exercised by the Chancellor and he would be exercising power under the Act as its Chancellor and not as Governor of the State of Karnataka; under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1986 and under the Karnataka Open Universities Act, 1992 the Chancellor has got specific power to order for enquiry which is conspicuously absent under the VTU Act and as such he prays for quashing of the impugned notification by allowing the writ petition. In support of his submission he has relied upon following Judgments: 1. (1982)2 SCC 7 – V.T. KHANZODE AND OTHERS VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2. (1962)2 SCR 738 – JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHER VS. DEPUTY CUSTODIAN GENERAL OF EVACUEE 3. (1995) 5 KLJ 436 – IMTIAZ AHMED AND OTHER VS. M/S. TAHA EXPORTS, BANGALORE. 4. (1991) 4 SCC 54 – BANGALORE MEDICAL TRUST VS. B.S.MUDDAPPA AND OTHER 5. (1990) 2 SCC 746 – NEELIMA MISRA VS. HARINDER KAUR PAINTAL AND OTHERS. 6. AIR 2006 SC 2075 / (2006)5 SCC 330 NAUTAM PRAKASH DGSVC, VADTAL VS. K.K. THAKKAR 7. (1966) SC 249 – BHARAT KALA BHANDAR LTD. VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, DHAMANGAON 8. (1999)3 SCC 422 – BABU VERGHESE VS. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA 8. Per contra, Sri. (1990) 2 SCC 746 – NEELIMA MISRA VS. HARINDER KAUR PAINTAL AND OTHERS. 6. AIR 2006 SC 2075 / (2006)5 SCC 330 NAUTAM PRAKASH DGSVC, VADTAL VS. K.K. THAKKAR 7. (1966) SC 249 – BHARAT KALA BHANDAR LTD. VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, DHAMANGAON 8. (1999)3 SCC 422 – BABU VERGHESE VS. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA 8. Per contra, Sri. M.B. Naragund, learned Senior counsel would reiterate contentions raised in the Statement of objections and elaborates his submission by contending that: (i) No Fundamental right of the petitioner being violated it has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition; (ii) Registrar has no right to file or present the writ petition against the Chancellor since both are officers of the University since previous sanction of the Executive Council is not obtained as required under Section 53(2) of the Act; (iii) Aggrieved person has an alternate remedy available under the Act, which would be available only after action, if any, taken by the Chancellor based on the report received from the fact finding committee, and as such present writ petition would not be maintainable. He would further contend that Chancellor being the head of the University is exercising his superintending power under Section 11(2) of the Act and there being no express provision for the Chancellor under the Act or Statute to order for conducting enquiry, the impugned notification appointing one man committee cannot be faulted and as such he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. In support of his submission he has relied upon following Judgments: 1. (1990)2 SCC 746 – NEELIMA MISRA VS. HARINDER KAUR PAINTAL AND OTHERS 2. (1963)4 SCR 575 – DEPUTY DIRECT OF CONSOLIDATION, AZAMGARH VS. DEEN BANDHU RAI 3. (1977)4 SCC 608 –STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 4. AIR 1986 AP 275 –M KIRAN BABU VS. GOVT. OF A.P. & ANOTHER 9. In reply Sri. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior counsel has contended that under Section 15(3) of the Act any legal proceedings by or against University it is the Registrar who can sue or be sued and as such the question of maintainability of the writ petition raised by the respondent is to be rejected since present writ petition has been filed by the University through its Registrar and there is no infirmity in this regard. He would also contend that when there is no express provision under the Act for the Chancellor to order for appointment of one man committee, Chancellor cannot exercise such power either by implied authority or under the guise of inherent power. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 10. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and after bestowing my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised, and also on perusal of case laws relied upon, this Court is of the considered view that following points would arise for consideration: “(1) Whether Writ Petition filed by the University through Registrar against the Chancellor is maintainable? OR Whether Writ Petition filed by the University through its Registrar is not maintainable for want of previous sanction under Section 53(2) of the Act from the Executive Council? (2) If answer to point No.1 is in the affirmative; then, Whether notification dated 19.12.2014 Annexure-A issued by respondent is to be quashed as ultra vires of Act or it has to be sustained? RE: POINT NO.1: 11. A preliminary objection has been raised with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on two grounds namely, (i) the Chancellor and the Registrar both being officers of the University as defined Under Section 10 of the Act no proceedings would lie without previous sanction of the Executive Council and; (ii) petitioner is not an aggrieved person and as such no relief can be claimed by it in this writ petition. 12. In order to adjudicate above points, it would be necessary to extract relevant provisions of the Act which may have bearing and impact on this issue. They are as under: “3. Establishment and Incorporation of the University: (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) In all suits and other legal proceedings by or against the University, the pleadings shall be signed and verified by the Registrar and all processes in such suits and proceedings shall be issued to and served on the Registrar. (4) xxx 10. Officers of the University: The following shall be the officers of the University, namely: (1) The Chancellor (2) Xxx (3) Xxx (4) The Registrar (5) Xxx (6) Xxx (7) Xxx (8) Xxx 15. (4) xxx 10. Officers of the University: The following shall be the officers of the University, namely: (1) The Chancellor (2) Xxx (3) Xxx (4) The Registrar (5) Xxx (6) Xxx (7) Xxx (8) Xxx 15. Registrar: (1) Xxx (2) xxx (3) In all suits and other legal proceedings by or against the University, the pleadings shall be signed and verified by the Registrar and all process in such suits and proceedings shall be issued to and served on the Registrar. 53. Protection of Acts and Orders: (1) XXX (2)(a) No suit, prosecution or other proceeding shall be against any officer or other employee of the University for any act done or purported to be done under this Act or the Statutes or Regulations, without the previous sanction of the Executive Council.” 13. A perusal of the above provisions of the Act would indicate that Registrar is empowered under Section 3(3) and Section 15(3) of the Act to affix his signature to the pleadings in any suit or other legal proceedings instituted by or against the University. Relying upon this provision it has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that present writ petition filed by the University through the Registrar is maintainable and University is entitled to challenge the impugned notification issued by the Chancellor on the ground of lack of power and as such writ petition is maintainable. 14. Visvesvaraya Technological University being an instrumentality of State would squarely fall within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and there cannot be any dispute with regard to this proposition. Thus, any action taken by the University would be amenable to judicial review. In other words any person aggrieved by any act of the University would be entitled to maintain a writ petition and in such circumstances, the Registrar of the University would be entitled to sign any pleadings for and on behalf of University while defending its action. Likewise when any proceedings is to be initiated by the University, Registrar is empowered to sue and in such proceedings the Registrar of the University would be entitled to sign and verify the pleadings and there cannot be any dispute with regard to said proposition also. Likewise when any proceedings is to be initiated by the University, Registrar is empowered to sue and in such proceedings the Registrar of the University would be entitled to sign and verify the pleadings and there cannot be any dispute with regard to said proposition also. However, the incidental question that would arise is when the University intends to initiate any proceedings against its officers who are defined under Section 10 of the Act, then whether Registrar on behalf of the University can sue by such official of the University by power conferred on him under Section 3(3) and 15(3) of the Act or whether he has to seek prior permission or approval and if yes, from whom? 15. In order to adjudicate said issue the statutory provision having bearing on this aspect will have to be looked into. Under Section 10(1) and 10(4) of the Act both “The Chancellor” and “The Registrar” are the officers of the University as defined under Section 10 of the Act itself and there cannot be dispute on this fact. It requires to be further noticed that Clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 53 prohibits initiation of proceedings against such officer of the University when the Act done or purported to be done by them is under the VTU Act, unless previous sanction of the Executive Council is obtained. As can be noticed from tenor of Section 53(2)(a) of the Act without previous sanction of the Executive Council no such proceedings can lie against any officer of the University. 16. Impugned notification would indicate that same has been issued by the Chancellor in purported exercise of the power vested under Section 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act and said act of appointing one man committee by the Chancellor would squarely fall within the province of “act done under the Act” as defined under Section 53(2)(a). 17. In other words when the University intends to challenge or question the action of the Chancellor, as being ultra vires of the Act or without there being power, it has to necessarily obtain previous sanction of the Executive Council before initiating any proceedings or calling in question such action of the Chancellor, since the Registrar as an officer of the University would be initiating proceedings against Chancellor who is also an officer of the University. Any other interpretation given to Section 53(2)(a) would render the provision itself otiose or it would become nugatory. When actions of the officers of the University namely, Officers defined under Section 10 of the Act is sought to be questioned in the Court of law by the University through only its officer, previous sanction of the Executive Council to initiate such proceedings is a must. The intention of this Section can be gathered from the very provision itself namely previous sanction of Executive Council acts as a check or balance to prevent unrighteous litigations or proceedings that may be initiated by one officer on behalf of the University against another and in order to prevent such situations arising or to ensure that Executive Council would in such circumstances deliberate and take conscious decision before any such proceedings is being initiated by one officer on behalf of the University against another. Non obtaining of the previous sanction of Executive Council may unleash chaos in the administration of University and as such the previous sanction of the Executive Council has been made mandatory under the Act before any proceedings is initiated against any officer of the University particularly when challenging or questioning the purported act done by the officer of the University, which may be in good faith. When such sanction is granted by or obtained from Executive Council then proceedings initiated against such officer would have legs to stand as otherwise not. 18. It is not the case of the petitioner-University that such previous sanction has been obtained by it from the Executive Council before initiating the proceedings against the Chancellor for calling in question his act purported to have been done in exercise of the power vested under Section 11 of the Act. Hence, it cannot be gainsaid by the petitioner-University that even in the absence of the previous sanction of the Executive Council, the present writ petition calling in question the act done by the Chancellor can be held to be maintainable. In the absence of previous sanction from the Executive Council, the purported act done by the Chancellor in good faith cannot be called in question in any proceedings. In the absence of previous sanction from the Executive Council, the purported act done by the Chancellor in good faith cannot be called in question in any proceedings. In that view of the matter it has to be held that present writ petition filed by the petitioner-University through its Registrar against the Chancellor of the University who is also an officer of the University as defined under Section 10(1) is not maintainable. 19. Though it has been contended that the Registrar who is also an officer of the University as defined under Section 10(4) of the Act and he being empowered to sue and be sued by virtue of power conferred on him under Section 3(3) and Section 15(3) of the Act, same cannot be accepted for the simple reason that said power or authority granted to the Registrar under Section 3(3) and 15(2) of the Act would only empower the Registrar to affix his signature to the pleadings in respect of disputes and it would not encompass within its scope to sue another officer of the University without previous sanction of the Executive Council. Hence, it has to be held that in the instant case that University having not obtained the previous sanction of the Executive Council of the University to challenge the Act of “Chancellor” who is an Officer of the VTU and defined under Section 10 of the Act, present writ petition is not maintainable. 20. Yet another fact which also requires to be examined is whether petitioner-University can be construed as a party being aggrieved by the Act of Chancellor who has issued the impugned notification appointing one man committee to enquire into alleged irregularities at the petitioner-University. For a writ being issued under Article 226 of Constitution of India it has to be established by such person about breach of right. Thus, violation of a right would be condition precedent for issuance of writ or in other words aggrieved person will have to establish breach of such right to enable this Court to issue Writ. Keeping this principle in mind when facts on hand are examined, the impugned notification would indicate that respondent as the Chancellor of petitioner-University has appointed a one man committee to ascertain the alleged irregularities at the Petitioner University. Petitioner cannot be construed as an aggrieved person or any of its right having been infringed. Keeping this principle in mind when facts on hand are examined, the impugned notification would indicate that respondent as the Chancellor of petitioner-University has appointed a one man committee to ascertain the alleged irregularities at the Petitioner University. Petitioner cannot be construed as an aggrieved person or any of its right having been infringed. In fact perusal of the averments made in the petition does not even remotely suggest about any such right of the petitioner having been violated. Petitioner in the instant case is not contending of any violation of its rights as a consequence of the impugned notification. Further, petitioner has no enforceable right to challenge the impugned notification. Therefore, petitioner is not an ‘aggrieved party’. For this reason, it has to be held that petitioner-University cannot be held to be an “aggrieved person” so as to give cause of action to it to challenge the impugned notification. For these reasons, point No.(1) formulated herein above has to be held in the negative. 21. Since Point No.1 has been answered in the negative, question of examining Point No.2 does not arise. 22. For reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. (ii) Costs made easy.