Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 1 other connected petitions. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 Date of Decision:
14. 5.2013 Khalsa College of Veterinary & Animal Science .....Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents.
2. Civil Writ Petition No.23421 of 2011 Ajay Pal Singh Kahlon and others .....Petitioners. Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents.
3. Civil Writ Petition No.5050 of 2012 Yadwinder Singh and others .....Petitioner. Versus Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Science Universty and others .....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. S.C.Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CWP No.23421 of 2011) Mr. Athar Ahmad, Advocate for respondent No.1. Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 2 other connected petitions. Mr. H.N.S.Gill, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. **** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.C.M. No.7314 of 2013 Applicant seeks exemption from filing certified copy of inspection report. Application is supported by an affidavit. Exemption sought is granted. Civil miscellaneous application stands disposed of. C.M. No.7315 of 2013 Applicant seeks to place on record additional reply on behalf of respondent No.3. Application is supported by an affidavit. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Additional reply on behalf of respondent No.3 is permitted to be placed on record. Civil miscellaneous application stands disposed of. C.M. No.7316 of 2013 Applicant seeks to place on record inspection reports as Annexures R-3/1 along with documents as R-3/2 and R-3/3.. Application is supported by an affidavit. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Annexures R-3/1 to R-3/3 are permitted to be placed on record. Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 3 other connected petitions. Civil miscellaneous application stands disposed of. CWP No.22653 of 2011 Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure P-8) issued by the Veterinary Council of India ('VCI' for short) and order dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure P-9) issued by Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana-respondent No.2 ('respondent University' for short), thereby denying the permission for admissions during the academic session 2011-12, petitioner college has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned orders. Two more writ petitions came to be filed by the students, bearing CWP No.23421 of 2011 (Ajay Pal Singh Kahlon and others Vs. Union of India and others) filed by 58 students and CWP No.5050 of 2012 (Yadwinder Singh Vs. Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Science University and others). The petitioners in CWP No.23421 of 2011 are seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the the same orders which are being sought to be quashed by the petitioner college in CWP No.22653 of 2011. However, in CWP No.5050 of 2012, petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondent University to adjust him either in its own campus or in any other affiliated college, if the permission is not granted to Khalsa College by the VCI. Instant order proposes to decide all these three writ petitions together, because substantial Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 4 other connected petitions. issue involved is one and the same. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CWP No.22653 of 2011. Facts first. Having been accorded approval to the petitioner for opening private Veterinary College, Punjab State Veterinary Council, vide communication dated 1.9.2009 (Annexure P-1), advised the petitioner college to approach the respondent University for affiliation. Pursuant to the official communication issued vide Annexure P-1, respondent university granted provisional affiliation to the petitioner college vide notification dated 14.5.2010 (Annexure P-2), for the academic year 2010-11. Again, the respondent University, vide notification dated 9.6.2011 (Annexure P-2/1), granted provisional affiliation to the petitioner college for the academic year 2011-12, for first year and second year of Bachelor of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry Programme ('B.V.Sc & A.H' for short). It is pertinent to note here that provisional affiliation was granted by the respondent University, vide Annexures P-2 and P-2/1, after carrying out the requisite inspection(s). Thereafter, VCI granted conditional permission for admission of students to B.V.Sc & A.H degree course in the petitioner college, vide letter dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure P-3). It seems that after granting the above said permission for admission vide communication dated 22.9.2010, another inspection was conducted from 6th to 8th June, 2011, vide inspection report Annexure P-4. However, recognition to the petitioner college was declined which came to be challenged before this Court by way of CWP not Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 5 other connected petitions. 16045 of 2011. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2011 (Annexure P-5), directing the VCI to depute another inspection team to carry out the inspection on objective consideration of the matter. In compliance of the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by this Court, VCI deputed an inspection team. Inspection was conducted w.e.f. 14th to 16th November, 2011 and report thereof, was submitted vide Annexure P-7. Based on the inspection report, Annexure P-7, VCI passed the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure P-8), declining the permission for admissions at the petitioner college. Consequently, the respondent University issued the impugned communication dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure P-9), intimating the petitioner college that as per the directions issued by VCI, admission to B.V.Sc & A.H. Programme in the petitioner College, during the academic session 2011-12 had been denied. Aggrieved, petitioner college has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement dated 9.1.2012 on behalf of respondent University, was filed through its Registrar. A detailed written statement dated 25.1.2012 was filed by Sh. Anup Bhaumik, Secretary VCI on behalf of respondent No.3. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 had been treating the petitioner in most arbitrary and discriminatory manner. He placed heavy reliance on the positive Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 6 other connected petitions. observations made by every Inspection Committee in favour of the petitioner college. After having been fully satisfied, VCI granted permission vide communication dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure P-3). The conclusion of the inspection report, Annexure P-4 was also in favour of the petitioner. The inspection team, which was constituted in compliance of the order dated 21.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by this Court, also concluded its report in favour of the petitioner, vide Annexure P-7, but the VCI was adamant and did not appreciate the factually and legally justified claim of the petitioner, in the right perspective. He further submits that VCI proceeded on factually incorrect, misconceived and erroneous approach, while passing the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure P-8), followed by the impugned communication dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure P-9) issued by the respondent University, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. However, VCI has allowed the admission of the students in an identical case, in spite of the fact that there were numerous serious deficiencies, as clear from order dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure P-10). He next contended that in compliance of the order dated 19.4.2012 passed by this Court, VCI deputed another inspection team. Five experts conducted the inspection on 16- 17.8.2012. Conclusion of third inspection conducted under the order of this Court also goes in favour of the petitioner. Thus, all the inspection reports submitted so far, supported the case of the petitioner. Copy of the inspection report conducted on 16th and 17th August, 2012 was not supplied to the petitioner. No show cause Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 7 other connected petitions. notice was issued to the petitioner. However, acting unilaterally and illegally on the inspection report, prepared in the month of August, 2012, respondents No.1 and 3 passed the orders dated 3.10.2012 (Annexure R-3/3) and 9.11.2012 (Annexure R-1), thereby deciding not to allow admission to the students in the petitioner college during the academic session 2012-13. These orders were passed behind the back of the petitioner. He also submitted that neither copy of the inspection report was placed on record of this case at the appropriate time, not any objection thereto was filed by VCI, in compliance of the order dated 9.7.2012 passed by the LPA Bench of this Court. He next contended that although this Court was seized of the matter, yet no permission was sought by respondent No.1 or by VCI from this Court before passing the order dated 3.10.2012, thereby proceeding on an unwarranted and contemptuous approach. Similarly, respondent No.1, on the recommendation of VCI, passed its ex parte order dated 9.11.2012 without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. Neither VCI not respondent No.1 communicated their orders either to the petitioner or to the respondent University. Thus, VCI as well as respondent No.1 have acted in arbitrary manner. Finally, he prays for setting aside the orders Annexure P-8, P-9 as well as the orders dated 3.10.2012 passed by the VCI and order dated 9.11.2012 passed by respondent No.1, by allowing the present writ petition. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-VCI submits that numerous deficiencies were pointed out, but those were Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 8 other connected petitions. not removed by the petitioner college before passing impugned order Annexure P-8. He further submits that the impugned order Annexure P-8, as well as order dated 3.10.2012 were rightly passed by the VCI. Inspection report of August, 2012 was sought to be placed on record of this case through C.M. No.7316 of 2013 dated 1.4.2013, but the same was returned by the Registry with some objections which were brought to the notice of this Court on 22.4.2013. Thereafter, in compliance of the order dated 22.4.2013 passed by this Court, the objections raised by the Registry were removed and finally, civil miscellaneous application was re-filed on 8.5.2013, seeking to place on record inspection report, Annexure R-3/1, Minutes of 45th meeting of VCI held on 7.9.2012 as Annexure R-3/2 and the order dated 3.10.2012 as Annexure R/3-3. He concluded by submitting that the since the petitioner college has not removed the deficiencies, the writ petition was misconceived and liable to be dismissed. Supporting the contentions raised by learned counsel for VCI, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that decision taken on 9.11.2012 by respondent No.1 was sought to be placed on record of this case vide C.M. No.17898 of 2012, which came up for hearing before this Court on 19.12.2012 and was ordered to be heard with the main case. He submits that copy of the C.M. No.17898 of 2012 was supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner along with copy of the decision dated 9.11.2012, Annexure R-1. Learned counsel for the respondent University submits Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 9 other connected petitions. that students who were admitted on the basis of provisional affiliation granted vide Annexures P-2 and P-2/1 and in view of the orders passed by this Court, are continuing their studies. He further fairly states that University was not averse in granting affiliation to the petitioner college provided VCI grants its permission to the petitioner college for admitting students. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that out these three, two writ petitions bearing CWP No.22653 and 23421 of 2011 deserve to be allowed whereas no order is warranted in the third petition bearing CWP No.5050 of 2012, which deserves to be disposed of, accordingly. To say so, reasons are more than, which are being recorded hereinafter. It has gone undisputed on record that pursuant to the approval granted by the State Government, vide Annexure P-1, the petitioner-college was granted provisional affiliation by the respondent University, vide Annexure P-2 for the academic session 2010-11 and vide Annexure P-2/1 for the academic year, 2011-12 for first and second year of B.V.Sc. & AH Programme. In the interregnum, conditional permission was granted to the petitioner college by the VCI vide communication dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure P-3). This conditional permission was granted by the VCI only after having satisfied itself, with the inspection report Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 10 other connected petitions. submitted by the Inspection Team. The relevant observations in this regard, read as under:- “While examining the Inspection Report, it has been observed that the Society has identified the building on temporary basis for setting up the College and proposes to create the required infrastructure in a time bound manner in the land made available for his purpose. The Dean and five Assistant Professors have already been engaged on regular basis and also committed to engage other faculty members as per requirements. On the basis of the report, it has been decided to allow admission of students as detailed by them in the proposal. The University would ensure that the deficiencies pointed out in the Inspection Report are met within one year before the students are promoted to the next class. The continuation of admission for 2nd year will be examined after inspecting the College before the next academic session. As the VCI Regulations prescribe that the College should have its own building, the society should construct the required college building within one year. The University is required to submit compliance/progress report towards fulfillment of the minimum requirements.”
. The petitioner college was again inspected qua general facilities on newly established college from 6th to 8th June, 2011 by an Inspection Committee, comprising one convener and two members, who were experts. The Inspection Committee submitted its report Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 11 other connected petitions. vide Annexure P-4 and the relevant conclusion arrived at by the Inspection Committee, reads as under:- “On overall inspection of the general facilities made available by KCVAS progress of the construction work and developmental activities undertaken by the Institute and after detailed discussion with the Principal of the College, Honorary Secretary of the Khalsa Society, members of Governing Council of the Society, faculty members and students, the Committee would Iike to put forth following major observations 1 The institute has completed the academic programme of the first professional year of B. V. Sc and AH as per the MSVE 200 prescribed by the Veterinary Council of India New DeIhi. 2 The facilities that have been made available by this newly established college at present are sufficient to meet the requirements of teaching of first and second year of B.V.Sc and AH. 3 The society is aware of MSVE2008 Regulations and is prepared to develop the Institute as per the minimum standards in a phased manner as evidenced from a) Initiation and progress of construction of college building, teaching veterinary clinical complex (TVCC) and steps taken towards establishment of instructional livestock farm complex ILFC. b) Budgetary provisions made by the society during Iast and current Financial year and the Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 12 other connected petitions. interest expressed by the officials of society during discussion with the Committee. Considering the above facts the committee is of the View that the Khalsa College of Veterinary and Animal Science has a full potential of developing into a good Veterinary Institute offering quality veterinary education in future. Sdl - sdl- sd/- Dr S Malikarjunappa Dr AH Ahmad Dr AS Bannalikar Convener Member Member”. In spite of the above said positive observations made by the Inspection Committee in favour of the petitioner college, respondent No.3 rejected the permission to the petitioner college, which came to be challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of CWP No.16045 of 2011. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) and the relevant operative part thereof, reads as under:- “In the Iight of the categoric stand taken on behalf of the petitioner college however, without expressing any views on its claim that the insfrastructure/facilities have been made available as per the statutory Regulations, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Veterinary Council of India to depute another Inspection Team which shall be preferably comprising its earlier members unless some of them are not available for the reasons beyond the control to revisit at the expenses of the petitioner-college and hold an enquiry/inspection regarding Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 13 other connected petitions. availability of the infrastructure and other requisite facilities The Inspection Team shall be at Iiberty to videograph the infrastructure available in the Institute at the expenses of the petitioner. The Inspection Team shall also obtain the documentary proof including appointment Ietters etc. if any deficiency in this regard was earlier found. The Inspection Team on objective consideration of the matter and uninfluenced of its previous report shall submit a fresh report to the Veterinary Council of India within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order The Veterinary CounciI of India shall thereafter take a fresh decision strictly in accordance with law and its Regulations within two weeks. Earlier interim directions shall however continue till the Veterinary Council of India takes a fresh decision in the matter. In compliance of the above said order passed by this Court, VCI deputed the same previous inspection team, however, one more member was added thereto. The petitioner college was inspected by the Inspection Team from 14th to 16th, November, 2011, and the inspection report was submitted vide Annexure P-7. The relevant operative part of the inspection report, reads as under:- “On overall inspection of the general facilities available at Khalsa College of Veterinary & Animal Science, Amritsar progress of the ongoing construction work and developmental activities undertaken by the institute and after detailed discussion with the Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 14 other connected petitions. Principal of the college, honorary secretary of the Khalsa Society, some of the members of Governing Council of the Society faculty members and students, the inspection team would Iike to putforth following major observations:
1. The newly established Khalsa college of Veterinary and Animal Science is being nourished under the umbrella of a well established education society having vast experience in and running educational institutes since Iast 118 years. 2 The progress made by the college during the Iast five months indicate their commitment towards willfully creating the infrastructure and physical facilities 3 The College administration is convincingly successful In maintaining the pace of in accordance with the VCI regulation2008and academic needs of B.V.Sc & AH degree curricula.
4. The institute has completed the academic programme of the first professional year of BVSc and A.H as per the minimum standards prescribed by the Veterinary Council of India New Delhi. 5 The academic programme of the institute is strictly as per MSVE regulations and is regulated by GADVASU Ludhiana.
6. The facilities made available by this newly established college at present are sufficient to meet the of teaching of first and second professional year of B.V. Sc and AH the above facts the inspection team is of the View that the Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 15 other connected petitions. Khalsa College of Veterinary and Animal Science has a full potential of running the B.V.Sc & AH degree programme as per MSVE regulations Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Dr S. Mallikarjunappa Dr.A H.Ahmad Dr AK Jain Convener Member Member Sd/- Dr AS Bannalikar Member”. A bare reading of the above said inspection reports submitted by the Inspection Committee would show that four experts made their positive and very emphatic observations in favour of the petitioner college. However, it seems that since the competent authority of the VCI was adamant for one or the other undisclosed reasons, for not granting permission to the petitioner college, permission was illegally declined for the academic session 2011-12 vide impugned order dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure P-8), ignoring the above said positive observations made by the Inspection Committee. Based on the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure P-8), the respondent University intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure P-9), disallowing the petitioner college to make admissions to B.V.Sc. & AH Programme, for the academic session 2011-12, as per the directions issued by VCI, vide Annexure P-8. In almost identical situation, obtaining in the case of Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar, affiliated to Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner, permission was granted to make admissions vide Annexure P-10. It is pertinent to note here that because of the impugned orders, Annexure P-8 and P-9, one Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 16 other connected petitions. academic session, i.e, 2011-12, has gone waste as the petitioner college could not make any admission. After due consideration, this Court has found force in the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner college that once the repeated inspections have been carried out and every time, conclusions of the inspection reports were in favour of the petitioner college, VCI was duty bound to accept the inspection reports submitted by the experts, who were deputed by the VCI itself. Further, while passing the impugned order, VCI has also not complied with the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by this Court, in its true spirit. A combined reading of the above said inspection reports and the impugned order would show that the competent authority of VCI proceeded on a negative and erroneous approach, while passing the impugned order. There is not even a passing reference in the impugned order, about the strong and positive observations made by the Inspection Committee, in favour of the petitioner. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned orders were unjust and unreasonable, which cannot be sustained. Further, it seems that the competent authority of the VCI was proceeding on a misconceived and indifferent approach while not discussing anything about the future of academic career of the students, who had been admitted for the academic session 2010-11. It shows nothing but total non-application of mind. It goes without saying that the petitioner college was imparting technical and Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 17 other connected petitions. professional qualification. The petitioner-college had successfully completed academic programme for the first professional year of B.V.Sc & AH degree course, as per the observations made by the Inspection Team, as per Annexure P-7. No reason is forthcoming as to why the petitioner college was being discriminated, as clear from a combined reading of Annexures P-8 and P-10. Thus, the impugned action taken by the VCI vide Annexure P-8, is also liable to be set aside, being discriminatory in nature. During the course of hearing on 16.2.2012, the report of Expert Committee (Annexure P-7) was also gone through by this Court and while adjourning the case for further consideration, following order was passed:- “The report prepared by the Expert Committee ( P-7) pursuant to the directions of this Court prima facie shows that the Expert Inspection Committee deputed by Veterinary Council of India was satisfied that the petitioner-College has full potential of running the BVSc and AH degree Programme as per MSVE. Resultantly, I have been taken through the report extensively prepared by the Inspection Team on the spot after carrying out an inspection of the infrastructure available at the petitioner college. However, the inspection report has not found favour with the Veterinary Council of lndia- respondent No.3 which still insists that there are deficiencies/inadequacies and, therefore, it has been decided not to allow admission to the petitioner college during the current academic session 2011-12. A reading of the impugned Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 18 other connected petitions. order does not disclose actual deficiencies in co-relation to the facilities available for etc. During pendency of this petition it has transpired that the petitioner-college has made additional appointments to the posts of Assistant Professors Demonstrators etc. which are necessary for carrying out the curriculum of the existing students admitted and studying in the 3rd semester. Again, on 19.4.2012, when the case was being heard, this Court thought it appropriate to get another inspection conducted by three experts, to be nominated by the VCI and the VCI would be bound by the final report. Respondent No.1 was also asked to nominate an independent expert. The relevant part of the order dated 19.4.2012, reads as under:- “Mr. Nagpal learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the academic session 2011-2012 is over and therefore no effective relief can be granted except to regularise the admission already made. This issue will be considered at the time of hearing of the main case. The Committee, that visited the College under direction of this Court has submitted a report, the summing of which was in favour of the petitioner. However, Mr. Sharma has pointed out that the conduct of the experts, who made the inspection has been put in doubt by the Veterinary Council of lndia (for short 'the VCI”.). He points out that there are contradictions within the report and the same did not support the conclusion. Mr. Nagpal Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 19 other connected petitions. prays for inspection of the College for the session 2012-2013 for which an application has already been made to the VCI. With a view to avoid the situation which has arisen, I would deem it fit to direct Mr. Sharma to obtain instructions from the VCI for appointment of three experts who will visit the petitioner college and submit report. Let Mr. Sharma place three names of experts who can be directed to be sent to the petitioner college to make the inspection. The Vice Chancellor of the respondent University would also give the name of one eminent expert of its faculty to be a part of the inspection team. It is made clear that in the event of inspection being made by the three experts, not to be nominated by the VCI under direction of this Court, the VCI would remain bound by its final decision. The Secretary Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries New Delhi would also nominate an expert besides the VCI and accompany the Committee to make the inspection.”
. The above said order came to be challenged by the VCI by way of two LPAs bearing No.871 and 872 of 2012 against two identical orders passed in the present writ petition as well as in CWP No.24321 of 2011. Both the LPAs were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 9.7.2012 and the relevant part thereof, reads as under:- “Having heard learned counsel for Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 20 other connected petitions. the appellants and without going deeply into the question of maintainability of these appeals against interlocutory orders, we are of the considered view that the directions so far as the appointment of experts by the Veterinary Council of India (for short“VCI”.) or to Government of India to nominate an independent expert to supervise the inspection to be carried out by the team of VCI experts, calls for no interference by us. However, the observations made by the learned Single Judge to the effect that “in the event of inspection being made by three experts, not to be nominated by the VCI under directions of this Court, the VCI would remain bound by its final decision”. are clarified to the extent that if the VCI has any objection against the inspection report to be submitted by its experts, it shall be at liberty to submit its objections before the learned Single Judge and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. The VCI shall ensure that the exercise of inspection etc. is carried out in such a time bound manner that the avenues of admissions to the respondent-colleges in the academic session 2012-2013 , if the college is found entitled to, are not effected in any manner. With these observations/clarification, the appeals stand disposed of”. The above said order dated 19.4.2012 passed by this Court was clarified by the LPA Bench that if the VCI would have any objection against the inspection report, to be submitted by its experts, Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 21 other connected petitions. it shall be at liberty to file its objections before this Court and the same shall be considered, in accordance with law. It was further directed that VCI shall ensure that exercise of the inspection etc. is carried out in such a time bound manner that avenues of admissions to the college in the academic session 2012-13, are not effected in any manner. It is also pertinent to note here that scope of initial notice of motion order issued on 7.12.2011 got enlarged by the above said orders passed by this Court and also by the LPA Bench of this Court. On 13.7.2012, this matter again came up for hearing in the presence of learned counsel for the parties. By this time, the above said order passed by the LPA Bench was also available. On 13.7.2012, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following order :- “The petitioner College has filed this writ petition to seek mandamus directing the respondents to permit them to continue with the admission and course of the First Year (First and Second Semesters) for the academic session fo”
2012. in terms of the report of the Inspection Committee submitted pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 21.10.2011. After hearing the counsel for the parties this Court passed a detailed order on 19.4.2012. Mr. Sharma appearing for respondent No .3 was asked to place names of three experts who can be directed to be sent to make an inspection. The Vice Chancellor of the respondent-College was Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 22 other connected petitions. also asked to give names of the eminent 5 expert of its faculty to be a part of the inspection team. It was further noticed that in the event of inspection being made by three experts not to be nominated by VCl under direction of this Court, the VCl would remain bound by its final decision Instead of complying with the directions as issued, respondent No.3 has filed a Letters Patent Appeal against this interim order. Today it is brought to my notice that the Letters Patent Appeal has been disposed of with some effect on the order whereby the inspection by the experts was made binding on the VCI. Copy of the order be obtained and placed on record. Mr. Sharma today also that the Vice Chancellor has already given to the VCl the names of three experts to out this inspection Let the inspection be carried out on or before the adjourned date or report be submitted before this Court. Adjourned to 24.8.2012 In the meantime the petitioner shall be permitted to participate in the counselling. However the college shall clearly apprise the students that this admission is subject to the final outcome of this writ petition In the meantime the University is directed to declare the result of the previous semester provisionally.”
. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the newly constituted Inspection Committee conducted inspection on 16th and 17th August, 2012. Vide above said order dated 13.7.2012, VCI Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 23 other connected petitions. was directed to submit the inspection report before this Court. Again, vide order dated 24.8.2012, VCI was directed to place on record the copy of the inspection report. On 19.11.2012, it was stated on behalf of VCI that VCI has forwarded its recommendations to Government for passing an appropriate order. In view of that statement made on behalf of VCI, it was directed that recommendations made by the VCI be placed on record by way of affidavit. It is pertinent to note here that on the one hand, neither the inspection report was being supplied to the petitioner, not it was being placed on record of this case, but on the other hand, respondents No.1 and 3 proceeded further passing their ex parte orders against the petitioner even without issuing any show cause notice. It was brought to the notice of this Court, for the first time on 17.11.2012, when the following order was passed:- “Counsel appearing for Union of India states that Ministry has rejected the prayer of the petitioner college and communication in this regard has been received. He prays for time to place the same on record. Adjourned to 11.12.2012. The record be kept ready at the time of arguments including the report, which was submitted by the Inspecting Team”. When the case came up for hearing on 11.12.2012, copy of the inspection report was still not produced and the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the respondents, subject to payment of `5,000/- as costs and the order dated Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 24 other connected petitions. 11.12.2012, reads as under:- “Just for placing one document on record time is again sought as the application was returned with some objection. Sufficient time was given to the UOI to file reply. Prayer is allowed, subject to payment of 5000/- as costs. Adjourned do 11.1.2013”. On 11.1.2013 also, inspection was not placed on record by respondent No.3 and the case was adjourned to 26.2.2013. Again on 26.2.2013, the case was adjourned to 19.3.2013. On 19.3.2013, inspection report was placed before this Court in a sealed cover. After a bare perusal of the inspection report, it was found that there was no serious deficiency pointed and after hearing the parties, respondent No.3 was directed to place on record complete copy of the latest inspection report, Minutes of meeting held on 1.10.2012 and other relevant documents, making its stand clear as to why the inspection reports were not being accepted. Order dated 19.3.2013 reads as under:- “In compliance of the order dated 11.1.2013 passed by this Court, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has produced today, the latest inspection report carried out in the month of August, 2012, in a sealed cover, which was opened in the Court. A bare perusal of the report particularly at page Nos. 29 and 30 thereof, shows that the report is not pointing out any serious deficiency. However, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that it is recorded in the minutes of Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 25 other connected petitions. meeting dated 1.10.2012 that there are number of deficiencies. After a perusal of the minutes of meeting supplied by learned counsel for respondent No.3, this Court is prima facie of the view that respondent No.3 is proceeding contrary to the repeated reports submitted by the inspection teams. This Court is not satisfied with the explanation given not the stand taken by respondent No.3, appeals to reason also. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that although the report is in favour of the petitioners, yet even a copy thereof has not been to them, despite repeated requests having been made in this regard. In this view of the matter, respondent No.3 is directed to place on record a complete copy of the latest inspection report, minutes of the meeting dated 1.10.2012 and any other relevant documents in this regard, making its stand clear as to why the inspection reports are not being accepted, with an advance copy thereof to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 seeks two weeks' time to do the needful. If the complete inspection report, minutes of meeting dated 1.10.2012 and other relevant documents, if any, are not placed on record within two weeks from today, Secretary of Veterinary Council of India-respondent No.3 shall come present before this Court, on the next date of hearing, so as to explain the prima facie unjust and unreasonable attitude of the VCI. Inspection report has been handed over to the learned counsel for respondent No.3. List on 3.4.2013.”
. On 3.4.2013, learned counsel for respondent No.3 again Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 26 other connected petitions. sought time and on his request, case was adjourned to next day, i.e. 4.4.2013. On 4.4.2013, case was adjourned to 22.4.2013. The inspection report was still not placed on record. However, accepting the request made by learned counsel for respondent No.3, he was allowed to read the relevant part of the report in the Court, but he was unable to read the documents as the same were in Gurmukhi script. Thus, he again sought time to place on record the translated copy of the inspection report, along with complete relevant record, in compliance of the order dated 19.3.2013. In this view of the matter, the case was adjourned to 14.5.2013, observing as under:- “Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that in compliance of the order dated 19.3.2013, he had already moved an appropriate application for placing the inspection report on record, with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, since the inspection report was not available on the record, the case was adjourned to 4.4.2013 and then to 22.4.2013. Today, again learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that he filed the application along with inspection report, but the office has raised some objections, including the translation of some documents which are in Gurmukhi. The objections have not been removed by him. Thus, the order passed by this Court on 19.3.2013 could not be complied with, so far. Accepting the prayer of learned counsel for respondent No.3, he was allowed Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 27 other connected petitions. to place on record the copy of the inspection report along with other documents, in Court. However, during the course of hearing learned counsel for respondent NO.3 was unable to read the documents which are in Gurmukhi script and again sought time to place on record the translated copy thereof along with complete inspection report and other documents as directed vide order dated 19.3.2013. Although there is no justification in adjourning the case repeatedly on the request of learned counsel for respondent No.3 yet, in the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity is granted to the learned counsel for respondent No.3 to comply with the order dated 19.3.2013 passed by this Court. However, it will be subject to payment of Rs . 5,000/- as cost to be paid by respondent No.3, cost to be disposed with Punjab State Legal Services Authority. The complete copy of the inspection report submitted by learned counsel for respondent NO.3 in the Court today, has been returned to him for placing the same on record, in compliance of order dated 19.3.2013.”
. A careful reading of the above said orders passed by this Court and the relevant sequence of events would show that in compliance of the above said order dated 9.7.2012 passed by the LPA Bench, neither respondent No.1 placed on record copy of inspection report, not filed its objections thereto. However, copy of Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 28 other connected petitions. inspection report came to be placed on record after passing of order dated 22.4.2013. On the other hand, respondent No.3 neither supplied copy of the inspection report to the petitioner, not any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing an ex-parte order against the petitioner on 3.10.2012, vide Annexure R-3/3 at page 845 of C.M. No.7316 of 2013, thereby violating the order passed by the LPA Bench. No satisfactory reply could be given on behalf of respondent No.3 and also on behalf of respondent No.1, as to why they did not convey their respective orders to the petitioner against whom the orders were passed or even to the respondent University, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Further, what prompted respondent No.3, to pass an ex- parte order dated 3.10.2012 making its recommendations against the petitioner, to respondent No.1, is neither understandable, not any reason, whatsoever, is forthcoming. Again, respondent No.1 also passed an ex parte order dated 9.11.2012, which was also not communicated to the petitioner, though it was placed on the record of this case vide C.M. No.17899 of 2012. Thus, it is unhesitatingly held that action of respondent No.3 as well as of respondent No.1, while passing their respective ex parte orders dated 3.10.2012 and 9.11.2012, without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner or granting any opportunity of being heard or taking this Court into confidence despite knowing fully well that this Court was already seized of the matter, was, on the face of it, arbitrary and the same Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 29 other connected petitions. cannot be sustained. Even the latest inspection report dated 17.8.2012 shows that no serious deficiency was pointed out by the Inspection Team. The conclusion arrived at by the Inspection Team, reads as under:- “Various departments had been provided with ample space, furniture and other infrastructural facilities. The kind of civil works, which have been done give ample evidence of better infrastructure for the effective teaching facility. The availability of equipment, instruments and teaching aids are sufficient for the present set of students for award of B.V. Sc & A.H. Degree. Sd/- Sd/- Dr. R.R. Sareenathan Dr. Harnam Singh Sd/- Sd.- Dr. Mohammad Nadeem Fairoze A.K.Srivastava Sd/- H.S.Sandhu”. In spite of the above said positive and emphatic observations made by the Inspection Team in favour of the petitioner college, respondent No.3 sent its recommendations dated 3.10.2012, Annexure R-3/3 to respondent No.1. A perusal of the order dated 3.10.2012 passed by VCI would show that the above said positive and emphatic observations made by the Inspection Team have neither been discussed, not discarded but altogether illegally ignored. Why it was being done in such manner by the VCI and that too repeatedly, the reasons are Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 30 other connected petitions. best known to the VCI only. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned, a bare reading of the order dated 9.11.2012 will make it clear that it has simply endorsed the view of respondent No.3, observing in para 3 of its communication dated 9.11.2012, as under:- “In view of the deficiencies indicated by the VCI in their letter dated 3.10.2012 and aforesaid decision of the VCI not to allow admission of students in Khalsa College of Veterinary and Animal Science, Amritsar for the current academic year, the Department is of the view that the management of the concerned College may inform VCI for fresh consideration of the matter after removing the deficiencies as pointed out by the VCI.”
. The arguments raised on behalf of respondent No.3 have been found to be misplaced and without any force. Learned counsel has tried to justify action of respondent No.3, referring to some of the letters issued by the members of the Inspection Team. It is a matter of record that every member of the Inspection Team is signatory to the report dated 17.8.2012. If any letter to the contrary has been issued by any of these members later on, that is only an afterthought and the same cannot be read into the inspection report, already prepared and signed by those very members and the Inspection Team. Further, the overall conduct of respondent No.3 has left no room for doubt that the authorities had been proceeding on a misconceived and perverse approach for the reasons best known to it. This Court refrain itself from making any further observations in this regard. Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 31 other connected petitions. In view of the abovesaid order dated 19.4.2012 passed by this Court, read with the order dated 9.7.2012 passed by the LPA Bench, VCI was bound by the inspection report dated 17.8.2012 and it was least expected from VCI to accept the expert report graciously, taking appropriate action accordingly. If not, then VCI would have raised its objection to the report. However, neither objections were filed not the report was accepted. Instead, order dated 3.10.2012 was passed which was not only arbitrary and contrary to the true spirit of orders dated 19.4.2012 and 9.7.2012 passed by this Court, but also contemptuous in nature. Filing of additional reply on behalf of VCI today, was also nothing but only an afterthought and was of no consequence because the order dated 3.10.2012 had already been passed by VCI and based on this order, Union of India had also passed ex-parte order dated 9.11.2012. This conduct of VCI cannot be countenanced because it is apparently arbitrary. Inspection report was submitted by the own experts of VCI. It is neither understandable not appeals to reason as to why the VCI should not accept and own the report. Further, efforts have been made to find fault with expert report and that too by an authority who does not even claim itself to be an expert. Thus, it clearly shows that the inbuilt working system of the VCI is not working properly. But, then why the institutions like the petitioner and other stakeholders including the students should be made to suffer for no fault on their part. While finding fault with the expert committee report, was Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 32 other connected petitions. the VCI acting bonafide, is another issue which needs consideration. In the given fact situation of the present case and keeping in view the totality of circumstances, discussed here-in-above, the irresistible conclusion is that VCI did not act bonafide. The reason is obvious. Despite being fully aware that this Court was already seized of the matter, neither VCI sought any permission from this Court before passing the above said order dated 3.10.2012, not issued any show cause notice to the petitioner. Neither a copy of the inspection report was placed on the record of this case, not it was supplied to the petitioner. Further, neither VCI supplied copy of ex parte order dated 3.10.2012 to the petitioner, not respondent No.1, i.e. UOI., supplied copy of its ex parte order dated 9.11.2012 to the petitioner. Since the impugned action taken by VCI has been found to be unjust and unreasonable the impugned order cannot be sustained. No doubt, VCI as well as UOI had the powers to decide, determining the issue even against the petitioner, however, at the same time, they were under legal obligation to act in a reasonable and fair manner. In the present case, since the VCI as well as UOI, while passing their respective orders dated 3.10.2012 and 9.11.2012 violated the basic principles of natural justice, while not supplying the copy of the inspection report of August, 2012 to the petitioner, not issuing any show cause notice, not granting any opportunity of being heard, the orders passed by them are nullity and the same are declared as such. It is so said because although the orders passed Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 33 other connected petitions. by them are administrative in nature, yet they involve civil consequences, because of which the VCI and UOI must have passed their respective orders consistently with the rules of natural justice. Ours is a democratic country. The authorities, even while passing the administrative orders, are expected to follow the rules of of fair play in their action. Thus, testing the impugned orders at the touchstone of reasonableness in administrative orders, the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities cannot be sustained. The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapai Dei and others, AIR 196.(SC) 1269, which has been consistently followed in a plethora of judgments, including in Dr. Bool Chand Vs. Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, AIR 196.SC 292.Sayeedur Rehman Vs. State of Bihar (1973) 3 SCC 333.Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405.Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 66.and Bharat Sewak Samaj Vs. Lieutenant Governot and others, (2012) 12 SCC 675.No other argument was raised. Considering the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considering view that the impugned orders dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure P-8), order dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure P-9), Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 34 other connected petitions. order dated 3.10.2012, Annexure R-3/3 passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 9.11.2012 (Annexure R-1) passed by respondent No.1, cannot be sustained, therefore, the same are hereby ordered to be set aside. Consequently, the following directions are issued:- i) Respondent No.3 is directed to grant permission to the petitioner college for admissions of the students to B.V.Sc. & A.H. Programme for the next academic session 2013- 14, because due to the arbitrary action of the VCI, one academic year has already gone waste. ii) VCI is further directed to point out real and genuine deficiencies, if any, to the petitioner college within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, granting reasonable time to remove the deficiencies. It goes without saying, being a matter of record, that in view of the concluding observations made by every Inspection Team, whosoever has conducted the inspection so far, no deficiency, as such, has been pointed out, as of now. Iii) Admissions made pursuant to the approval, affiliation and permission granted to the petitioner college vide Annexures P-1 to P-3 and also as per interim orders issued by this Court, Civil Writ Petition No.22653 of 2011 & 35 other connected petitions. shall be treated to have been made in accordance with law. The admissions so made shall be regularised, if not already regularised. iv) The respondent University is directed to declare the results of the students who are petitioners in CWP No.23421 of 2011 as well as in CWP No.5050 of 2012 and also other similarly situated students as well, who have not approached this Court. v) The petitioners in CWP No.23421 of 2011 and CWP No.5050 of 2012, shall be allowed to complete their courses, as per rules and regulations of the respondent University. vi) The petitioner college shall be permitted to participate in the counselling and make admissions, from amongst the eligible students, for B.V.Sc. & A.H. Programme, for the coming academic session, 2013-14. Resultantly, CWP No 22653 of 2011 and CWP No.23421 of 2011 stand allowed in the terms aforementioned. However, in view of the detailed order passed here-in-above, no separate orders are called for in CWP No.5050 of 2012 and the same is ordered to be disposed of accordingly, however, with no order as to costs. (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 14 5.2013 AK Sharma