JUDGMENT : B.S. Patil, J. 1. Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi, has filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated 27.02.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable. 2. The writ petition was filed questioning the notification dated 19.12.2014 issued by the Chancellor of Universities in Karnataka, appointing a retired Judge of the High Court as one man fact finding committee to enquire into certain allegations made regarding the irregularities committed in the recruitment for 168 teaching posts and in awarding civil works and purchases in the University and several other allegations of irregularity as stated in the said notification. As is evident from the notification impugned in the writ petition, the Chancellor has exercised his power under Section 11(1) & (2) of the Visvesvaraya Technological University Act, 1994, (for short, ‘the Act’). 3. The main contention of the writ petitioner-University was, that neither Section 11 nor any other provision in the Act conferred any power on the Chancellor to appoint such a committee and that the only power as provided under the Act is under Section 9, whereunder the State Government may call upon the University to offer its explanation with regard to any such matter and only if the explanation is found to be unsatisfactory, then the State Government with the concurrence of the Chancellor can issue instructions to the University and even there, the Chancellor had no independent power to act on his own to appoint a committee either under Section 11 or Section 9 of the Act. The writ petition was resisted by the Chancellor. 4. The learned Single Judge has held that the writ petition filed by the University through its Registrar was not maintainable for want of previous sanction under Section 53(2) of the Act from the Executive Council. The learned Single Judge has also held that the University could not be construed as a party aggrieved by the action of the Chancellor in issuing the notification appointing one man committee and that no right of the petitioner had been violated as a result of the impugned notification. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard Mr. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-University and Mr. M.B. Naragund, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Chancellor of the University. 6. It is contended by Mr. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard Mr. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-University and Mr. M.B. Naragund, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Chancellor of the University. 6. It is contended by Mr. Nanjunda Reddy that there is no power vested with the Chancellor to direct an enquiry by appointing one man fact finding committee. It is urged that Section 53(2) of the Act has no application to the facts of the present case as the same pertains to protection of an officer or other employee of the University for liability in respect of any civil or criminal proceeding for any act done under the Act or the Statutes or Regulations. The requirement of previous sanction of the Executive Council as contained under Section 53(2)(a) & (b) of the Act, it is urged, has been introduced to protect the officer or other employee from being held personally liable for any act done in discharge of the duties and functions under the Act or the Statute or the Regulations. It is his contention that Section 53(2) of the Act will have no application where the action of the Chancellor has been challenged contending that the notification issued by him was without jurisdiction and outside the scope of his authority. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR VS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, VIGILANCE POLICE & ANOTHER – (2011) 4 SCC 395 , in this regard. He has further contended that where the Statute does not expressly or impliedly authorize the Chancellor to issue such notification, it shall be regarded that such act has been prohibited. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of V.T. KHANZODE & OTHERS VS RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANOTHER – (1982) 2 SCC 7 . He has urged that the University which is now sought to be proceeded against by appointing a fact finding committee is indeed an aggrieved person because it is the affairs of the university that has been ordered to be investigated. He has urged that the University which is now sought to be proceeded against by appointing a fact finding committee is indeed an aggrieved person because it is the affairs of the university that has been ordered to be investigated. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA VS M.V.DABHOLKAR & OTHERS – (1975) 2 SCC 702 and a Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of SHRI S.L. KAPOOR VS SHRI JAGMOHAN, LT. GOVERNOR, ETC. - ILR (1980) I DELHI 263. 7. Mr. Naragund, has vehemently contended that Chancellor being the Head of the University is entitled to initiate such process of fact finding regarding the allegations made. Section 9 of the Act being only an enabling provision, the same does not pre-suppose that the Chancellor has no powers as Head of the University to have an enquiry conducted wherever serious allegations and irregularities are noticed in the working of the University. He has invited the attention of the Court to Sections 13(1), 29, 30, & 50 of the Act, to urge that University not being an aggrieved person cannot maintain the writ petition. He has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of M. KIRAN BABU VS GOVT. OF A.P. & ANOTHER – AIR 1986 AP 275 , P.M. PARAMESHWARAMURTHY VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 2013 KAR 209. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D. NAGARAJ, ETC., VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS - AIR 1977 SC 876 and an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.41602-603/2012 and connected cases, disposed of on 05.11.2012. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after carefully examining various provisions contained in the Act as also the notification issued by the Chancellor which is impugned in the writ petition, it emerges that as provided under Section 11(2) of the Act, the Chancellor is the Head of the University. None other than the Governor of the State of Karnataka, by virtue of his office, holds the office of the Chancellor of the University as stipulated in Section 11(1) of the Act. The Vice-Chancellor as per Section 13(1) of the Act, is the whole time officer of the University and functions as Chief Academic and Administrative Head of the University. None other than the Governor of the State of Karnataka, by virtue of his office, holds the office of the Chancellor of the University as stipulated in Section 11(1) of the Act. The Vice-Chancellor as per Section 13(1) of the Act, is the whole time officer of the University and functions as Chief Academic and Administrative Head of the University. Indeed, the Vice-Chancellor is appointed by the Chancellor. Under Section 14(2) of the Act, the Vice-Chancellor is required to exercise general control over the affairs of the University and shall be responsible for the due maintenance of discipline in the University. As per the scheme of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Act, particularly Sub-sections (6) to (8), the Vice-Chancellor may take action in any emergency warranting immediate action and report the action to the authority which would ordinarily have dealt with the matter and if such action affects any person in service of the University, as per Sub-section (7), he may prefer an appeal to the Executive Council. Further, as per Sub-section (8) any person aggrieved by the appellate order of the Executive Council, may within 30 days from the date of communication of such order, appeal to the Chancellor and the decision of the Chancellor on such appeal, shall be final. In terms of Section 14(9) of the Act, the Vice-Chancellor shall give effect to the orders of the Executive Council regarding appointment, suspension and dismissal of officers and other employees of the University. 9. It is thus evident from the above, that the Chancellor being the Head of the University has been conferred with appellate powers against the orders of the Vice-Chancellor once the same undergoes scrutiny by the First Appellate Authority i.e., the Executive Council. Section 3 of the Act, which pertains to establishment and incorporation of the University provides as per Sub-section (2) that the University shall be a body corporate capable of suing and being sued and as per Section 3(3) of the Act, in all legal proceedings by or against the University, the pleadings shall be signed and verified by the Registrar. 10. 10. As per Section 15(1) of the Act, the Registrar is appointed by the Vice-Chancellor with the approval of the Executive Council and in terms of Section 15(3) of the Act, in all suits and other legal proceedings by or against the University, the pleadings shall be signed and verified by the Registrar. Section 9 of the Act deals with accountability of the University. It states that if the State Government is of the opinion that in any matter the affairs of the University are not managed in furtherance of the objectives of the University or in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the Statutes or Regulations, it may call for explanation from the Executive Council. If the Executive Council fails to offer any explanation within the time specified or the explanation offered is unsatisfactory, the State Government with the concurrence of the Chancellor may issue such instructions as may appear to be necessary and desirable and exercise such powers as may be necessary to give effect to those instructions. Section 9(2) of the Act enjoins the Executive Council with a duty to furnish information relating to the administration of the University as the State Government may require. 11. Thus, as per Section 9 of the Act, the State Government has got power to call for explanation from the Executive Council regarding the affairs of the University which are allegedly not managed as per the Act and Rules, no doubt, with the concurrence of the Chancellor. This also indicates the preeminent role of the Chancellor in verifying the affairs of the University and in ensuring that the affairs of the University is managed in furtherance of the objectives of the Act and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Statute and Regulations. 12. Section 10 of the Act, which finds place in Chapter V, deals with officers of the University. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar and several other officers are treated as officers of the University. 13. 12. Section 10 of the Act, which finds place in Chapter V, deals with officers of the University. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar and several other officers are treated as officers of the University. 13. When these are the relevant provisions for the purpose of the present case, the questions that would fall for consideration are:- “(a) In the absence of any specific provision in the Act expressly conferring power to appoint one man committee to ascertain certain facts as regards the allegations of irregularities and illegalities made in the functioning of the University and its officers, whether the Chancellor could have issued the impugned notification appointing the one man committee? (b) Whether the University which has challenged the notification issued by the Chancellor, could have maintained the writ petition? In other words, can the University be treated as an aggrieved person against the impugned notification issued by the Chancellor? (c) Whether Section 53(2) of the Act has any application to the facts of the case to urge that the notification issued by the Chancellor cannot be challenged because Chancellor being an officer of the University, any act done by way of issuing the impugned notification cannot be challenged without the previous sanction of the Executive Council?” 14. The learned Single Judge has held that when the University intends to challenge or question the action of the Chancellor as ultra vires the Act, it has to necessarily obtain previous sanction of the Executive Council because the Registrar as an officer of the University would be initiating proceedings against the Chancellor who is also an officer of the University and as per Section 53(2)(a) of the Act, initiation of such proceedings against any officer without previous sanction of the Executive Council is barred. 15. Let us first examine the effect of Section 53(2) of the Act, which will be an answer to point no.(c) raised herein above. Section 53(2) of the Act is enacted for the purpose of protecting the officer or other employee of the University for an act done or purported to be done under the Act, Statutes or Regulations by placing a rider that no suit, prosecution or other proceedings shall lie against them without the previous sanction of the Executive Council. Section 53(2) of the Act is enacted for the purpose of protecting the officer or other employee of the University for an act done or purported to be done under the Act, Statutes or Regulations by placing a rider that no suit, prosecution or other proceedings shall lie against them without the previous sanction of the Executive Council. Section 53(2)(b) of the Act, further lays down that no such officer or other employee of the University shall be liable in respect of any such act in any civil or criminal proceeding, if the act was done in good faith in exercise of its duties and function imposed by the Act. This provision cannot be interpreted to hold that the notification issued by the Chancellor cannot be challenged without the previous sanction of the Executive Council. The object behind enacting such a provision is to discourage any suit, prosecution or proceeding against an officer or employee of the University to hold him liable for such acts which were done by him in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act and the Rules, without taking previous sanction of the Executive Council. 16. In the instant case, what is challenged is the notification issued by the Chancellor urging that it was beyond the power and jurisdiction of the Chancellor to issue such notification. The expression ‘no suit, prosecution or other proceeding shall lie against any officer or other employee of the University for any act done or purported to be done under the Act or the Statutes or Regulations’, can only mean that such prosecution or proceeding cannot be initiated against any officer to make him liable for the acts done by him in discharge of his duties under the provisions of the Act or the Statutes or Regulations. The said expression cannot be interpreted to mean that legality and correctness of such actions of the officers or other employees of the University cannot be challenged by instituting any legal proceeding, that too by invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such an interpretation is not only not warranted in the instant case, but is also opposed to the intent and purpose behind enacting Section 53(2) of the Act. Such an interpretation is not only not warranted in the instant case, but is also opposed to the intent and purpose behind enacting Section 53(2) of the Act. It is well established that plain and literal meaning has to be adopted while interpreting the provisions of the enactment when such interpretation does not lead to absurdity and ambiguity. Hence, it has to be held that the writ petition cannot be dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that prior permission of the Executive Council was not obtained for filing the writ petition. 17. As regards the power of the Chancellor to issue the impugned notification, the provisions of the enactment which have been referred in some detail in the discussion made by us herein above, make it clear that the Chancellor is the head of the University. None other than the Governor of the State is required to act as Chancellor of the University by virtue of the High office held by him. The Vice-Chancellor of the University is appointed by the Chancellor. The Chancellor is the Appellate Authority against the orders passed by the Executive Council in appeal against the orders of the Vice-Chancellor. As per Section 9, even where the State Government intends to convey any instructions to the Executive Council regarding any illegalities committed by the University or in the matter of maintaining the standards of teaching, examination, etc., it has to seek the concurrence of the Chancellor. Thus, the various provisions read as a whole will not enable us to come to a conclusion that in the absence of any specific provision the Chancellor cannot appoint a one man committee to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations made as regards irregularities or illegalities committed by the University. In his capacity as the Head of the University and in the light of the provisions adverted to above, the Chancellor does have inherent power to find the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the management and affairs of the University. 18. In the instant case, except appointing a one man committee to ascertain the true facts, the Chancellor has not taken any action against anybody. Therefore, it is a too far fetched a contention to countenance that Chancellor cannot even initiate measures by appointing a fact finding committee to appraise himself of the veracity of the allegations made. 18. In the instant case, except appointing a one man committee to ascertain the true facts, the Chancellor has not taken any action against anybody. Therefore, it is a too far fetched a contention to countenance that Chancellor cannot even initiate measures by appointing a fact finding committee to appraise himself of the veracity of the allegations made. Hence, the contention of the appellant in this regard deserves to be rejected. Reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant on the judgment in the case of BANGALORE MEDICAL TRUST VS B.S.MUDDAPPA & OTHERS – (1991) 4 SCC 54 , is not apposite to the facts of the present case. There cannot be any dispute that no one howsoever high can arrogate to himself or assume without any authorization express or implied in law a discretion to ignore the rules and deviate from rationality by adopting a strained or distorted interpretation which renders the action ultra vires and bad in law as held by the Apex Court in paragraph 46 of the above mentioned judgment. As already observed by us, the action of the Chancellor is not ultra vires the provisions of the Act and therefore, question of applying the ratio laid down in the above case by the Apex Court does not arise in the instant case. 19. In so far as the right of the University through its Registrar to maintain a challenge against the notification issued by the Chancellor, we find that as per Section 3(2) of the Act, the University is a body corporate and as per Section 3(3) of the Act, the Registrar signs the pleadings in all legal proceedings by or against the University. The Chancellor is the Head of the University. It is inconceivable how the University which is a body corporate can challenge the action of its own head. The Registrar cannot, on his own, take a decision to challenge the action of the Head of the University in issuing the notification. The Vice-Chancellor who is appointed by the Chancellor cannot be said to be an aggrieved person in the facts of the instant case to maintain a challenge to the notification issued by the Chancellor appointing one man fact finding committee. The Vice-Chancellor who is appointed by the Chancellor cannot be said to be an aggrieved person in the facts of the instant case to maintain a challenge to the notification issued by the Chancellor appointing one man fact finding committee. The Vice-Chancellor cannot through the Registrar contend that the rights of the Universities have been violated by the Chancellor by appointing a one man committee to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations. If the Vice-Chancellor is challenging the action of the University or that of the Chancellor, in his individual capacity as a person aggrieved and affected by such action so as to protect his interest, then the matter would have been different. Admittedly, the Vice-Chancellor has not filed the writ petition in his individual capacity. The writ petition is filed by the University through its Registrar to allegedly protect the rights of the University. In our view, no such writ petition can be filed by the University against its own head to challenge the notification in question. The University cannot be termed as an aggrieved party by the impugned notification. 20. The decision on which the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the case of BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA VS M.V.DABHOLKAR & OTHERS – (1975) 2 SCC 702 , will have no application to the facts of the present case. Even if the expression ‘person aggrieved’ is given a wider connotation keeping in mind the purpose and object of the provisions of the present Statute, the decision of the Apex Court cannot be made applicable to the instant case. In the aforementioned decision, the Apex Court was dealing with the purport and import of the words ‘persons aggrieved’ used in Sections 37 & 38 of the Bar Council of India Act, while laying down that the said expression has to be understood and its meaning ascertained with reference to the purpose and provisions of the Statute. While stating that the meaning of the words ‘a person aggrieved’ may vary according to the context of the Statute, the Apex Court has pointed out that a person would be said to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him and that normally one is required to establish that he has been denied or deprived of something to which he was legally entitled in order to make him a person aggrieved. In the context of the role of the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, which is comparable to the role of guardian in Professional Ethics, the Apex Court has held that the words ‘persons aggrieved’ in Sections 37 & 38 of the Bar Council of India Act, should not be subjected to a restricted interpretation. It has been stated in the said decision that the test in such circumstance is whether the words ‘person aggrieved’ include a person who has genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interest. 21. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the University has a genuine grievance against the notification issued by the Head of the University alleging that the same prejudicially affected the interest of the University. Indeed, in our view, having regard to the nature of allegation made against some of the actions of the University, if truth is not ascertained, it will affect the image of the University and its credibility. Therefore, we are of the clear view that the University cannot be treated as an aggrieved person and hence, it cannot maintain the writ petition. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. 22. In the result, we dismiss this appeal.