Kannur University VC Cannot Construe Himself To Be Armed With Unlimited Power: Kerala High Court, Quashes Sanction For Private College

The Kerala High Court recently set aside the Administrative Sanction issued by the Government to Kannur University in favour of TKC Education and Charitable Society (TKC) for starting a new Arts and Science College for the academic year 2022-23.

The court said the Vice Chancellor of the University had acted beyond the scope of his powers while considering TKC's application, which admittedly was incomplete.

Justice Devan Ramachandran said the VC has been statutorily vested with great powers when it requires immediate action, enabling him to exercise any power vested with the Syndicate or Academic Council of the University.

"It does not require to be stated specifically that the Vice Chancellor is expected to act judiciously and strictly circumscribed by the limits under Section 11 of the Kannur University Act, 1996 and that he cannot choose to do as he pleases, even when the Syndicate or the Academic Council is not in session," said the court.

However, the court said whatever be the reasons that he may cite, the fact remains that he could have exercised any power under Section 11 of the Act in favour of TKC, only after being satisfied that their application was complete in all respects, complying with all the statutory requirements as are mandated and that any discrepancy therein had been rectified before the date mentioned in Statute 6 of Chapter V of the First Statutes.

"However, in the case at hand, the Vice Chancellor appears to have acted much in excess of his powers and dealt with an application which was, admittedly, incomplete and in error – which fact was unequivocally conceded to by "TKC" in their letter dated 19.05.2022," it said.

The Court in this case was dealing with the question as to whether the VC had acted correctly in directing that the application of TKC was to be proceeded with to the stage of inspection, thus leading to the obtention of "Administrative Sanction" from the Government.

The Case

TKC had made an application before the Kannur University for starting a new Arts and Science College for the academic year 2022-23. However, this application was found to be defective by the Registrar of the Kannur University, who issued a letter dated 5th February 2022, stating that the land that was offered did not belong to them but to six other persons.

Clarifications were offered by TKC regarding certain aspects, which were considered by the Registrar along with the Land Acquisition Officer of the university, but the defects still remained. A letter dated 26th March 2022 was addressed to them pointing out the same and granting 15 days time for correcting the discrepancies.

However, TKC was unable to make the requisite rectifications within the stipulated time. They approached the Registrar with a letter dated 19th May 2022 whereby they conceded that "at least 45 cents of land was not lying contiguous to the balance offered by them"; and therefore they proposed to substitute it with another one acre which was in the name of an individual, who was their member.

They requested the Registrar to do the needful stating that they would register that property also within three months or earlier as per instructions given.

Interestingly, the Registrar placed this letter of TKC before the VC on the same day, who made an endorsement in his own handwriting stating that it was urgent and may be placed before the Syndicate meeting on 27th May 2022, and that Dr. Ashokan and Mr. M.C. Raju was to conduct an inspection on 21st May 2022.

Pursuant to this, the Inspection Team submitted a report before the Vice Chancellor recommending the grant of a provisional affiliation subject to a NOC to a new Arts and Science College to TKC with effect from 2022-23.

The report was approved by the VC on 15th June 2022, and he directed the matter to be placed before the Syndicate. The Syndicate thereafter did consider the file, however, since the NOC from the Government had not been received by them, they endorsed the word 'noted' on the file. It was at this juncture that the Government issued the impugned 'Administrative Sanction' dated 26.07.2022, indicating therein that they were acting as per the letter of the Registrar dated 17.06.2022.

At this stage, a writ petition was filed, pursuant to which an interim order was issued on 5th August 2022, directing that all further action based on the impugned "Administrative Sanction" was to be deferred.

Meanwhile another writ petition was also filed by Association of the Managements of Self Financing Arts and Science Colleges wherein the Administrative Sanction of the Government was again challenged.

Findings of the Court:

The Court said as per Chapter V of the Kannur University First Statutes, 1998, it is normally the Syndicate of the University, which is to consider the applications seeking affiliation. It also noted that as per Statute 6, it ought to be done not later than April 30th, preceding the academic year in which the College/Course is proposed to be started.

"The afore provisions assume great importance in this case because, when "TKC" made their application and it was found to be defective, as seen above, the Registrar of the University issued letters dated 05.02.2022 and 26.03.2022 asking them to cure it and granted them 15 days from the date of the latter, presumably because he was aware that unless the defects are cured at least by mid April, same would not be able to be considered by the Syndicate – being constrained by the time frame in Statute 6 of the "First Statutes"," it said.

The court added that TKC did not do so and after the deadline under Statute 6, they approached the Registrar with the letter dated 19.05.2022 and merely requested him to do the needlful while also unambiguously intimating him that they will need at least three months time to satisfy the land requirements as per the mandatory Statutory Scheme.

The Court said the letter could not have been considered by the Registrar or any other authority considering that TKC had not complied with the mandatory provisions.

"But, ineffably, the Registrar placed this letter before the Vice-Chancellor on the same day and the said Authority, through the aforementioned endorsement, not merely considered it; but went on to constitute an Inspection Committee and even fixed the date of inspection as being 21.05.2022; with a further instruction that the file be placed before the Syndicate on 27.05.2022," it said.

The court also said based on the endorsement made by the VC on the letter of TKC, the inspection committee went on to complete the process on the very next day and presented their report before the VC on the same day.

"The Vice Chancellor, thereupon, accepted the Inspection Report, which incredulously recommended commencement of the course by "TKC", without referring to the admitted fact that they did not satisfy the statutory land requirements, on 15.06.2022," said the court

The court further said that it is unclear what happened between May 20, when the Inspection Committee report was placed before the VC and June 15, the date on which he approved it.

"Strangely, the Registrar, solely on such basis, issued a letter to the Government on 17.06.2022, which led to the "Administrative Sanction" impugned in these cases," it said.

The Court said the Administrative Sanction of the Government can find its favour only if the processes followed by the Vice Chancellor prior to it were found to be 'irreproachable'.

The bench did not find any merit in the contentions of the Standing Counsel for the University that even if any error on the part of the VC could be found, it would not be crucial since the action had not benefited the petitioners in any manner anyhow as the Syndicate was yet to grant its sanction.

"This is because, the Vice Chancellor of the University is an Authority with great responsibility, power and dignity. He is expected to act in the highest traditions and in implicit compliance with the statutory provisions and prescriptions; but cannot construe himself to be armed with the unlimited power or unbridled privileges", the court observed.

The Court said the VC could have acted only within the bounds of Section 11 of the Act when there was an emergency, requiring him to take immediate action, which cannot be found herein.

It added that the when the letter from TKC dated 19.05.2022 to the Registrar was placed before the VC, "...he ought to have considered the same in its proper perspective, circumscribed by the limits of his powers; but instead of doing so, he accepted it and directed an inspection on the application of "TKC", knowing fully well – it being unreservedly admitted in the said letter itself – that they had not satisfied the land requirements, as are statutorily mandated".

The Court said VC acted incorrectly and should have chosen and could have stopped all further processes and steps pursuant thereto.

"If he had done so, this Court may have found mitigating factors in his favour," it added.

The Court said it was baffling that when TKC's application admittedly was defective, the VC approved the Inspection Report; adding that the report itself appears to have been settled in disregard to the statutory prescriptions.

"To make matters worse, the Registrar of the University forwarded a letter to the Government on 17.06.2022 – which can only be based on the action of the Vice Chancellor and his orders, because the Syndicate had not even dealt with the application of "TKC" until then – seeking their concurrence, which led to the impugned "Administrative Sanction" dated 26.07.2022", the Court added.

The court further noted that when files relating to application of TKC were placed before the Syndicate, it made an endorsement after noticing the actions of Vice Chancellor. The bench in an interim order passed earlier noted that had the "Administrative Sanction" of the Government been received by the Syndicate on that date, it was certainly possible that they may have granted, or at least considered grant of affiliation to TKC.

"…which then, would have ended in a complete travesty of the processes under the "Act" and the "First Statutes". Though the files do not specifically reveal so, the impugned "Administrative Sanction" appears to have been received by the Syndicate later; but, by then, the first among the above Writ Petitions, namely W.P.(C)No.24824 of 2022, had already been filed, in which an order of interdiction was issued by this Court," said the court.

The court said it irrefragable that the Vice Chancellor acted solely on the basis of the letter of "TKC", allowing their concededly incomplete application to be processed and taken forward to the stage of inspection; and then approved the resultant Inspection Report.

"It becomes ineluctable that the "Administrative Sanction" issued by the Government was based on the letter of the Registrar, which in turn, emanated out of an incomplete and defective application of "TKC". These surely, therefore, cannot find imprimatur in law"," it said.

Noting that one may not be able to find fault with Administrative Sanction issued by the Government since perhaps they were not aware of the facts when the considered the Registrar's letter, the court said:

"when this Court is convinced that the Vice Chancellor acted in excess of the powers vested with him and in a manner which he ought not to have, the report of the "Inspection Committee constituted by him, as also further proceedings thereon – including at the hands of the Registrar and that of the Syndicate – are rendered vitiated. Axiomatically, the impugned "Administrative Sanction" issued by the Government would also be without legs to stand on."

Allowing the writ petitions by setting aside the Administrative Sanction by the Government to the Kannur University in favour of TKC, the court further said a actions of the VC commencing from his endorsement on the letter of TKC dated 19.05.2022, as well as the Inspection Report are also set aside,

"However, with liberty being reserved to the Syndicate of the University to reconsider the application of TKC, subject to the requirements under law being satisfied, for the apposite academic year as per Statute 6 of Chapter V of the 'First Statutes'," said the court.

The Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 24824/2022 was represented by Advocate P.K. Ravisankar, and that in W.P. (C) No. 27569/2022 was represented by Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, and Advocates Nisha George and Sidharth R. Wariyar. The various respondents in the two writ petitions were represented by the Standing Counsel for Kannur University I.V. Pramod, Government Pleader Parvathy K., and Advocates Kodoth Sreedharan, P.A. Mohammed Shah, Renoy Vincent, Helen P.A., Arun Roy, Shahir Showkath Ali, and Aleesha Shereef. 

Case Title: Self Financing Arts & Science College Managements Welfare Association (KSMA) v. State of Kerala & Ors and Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 537

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment