T. Vaiphei, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.2.2008 issued by the Commissioner/Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Education Department purportedly under Rule 8 of the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1965 ('the Rules' for short), as adopted in the State of Meghalaya, taking over the control and management of Raid Laban College ('the College') and appointing Shri W. Lyngdoh, Joint Director, Higher & Technical Education, as the Administrator of the College for a period of three months.
2. The material facts giving rise to this writ petition may be set out at the very outset. The College is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with its registered office at Laban, Shillong. The petitioner No. 2 is the governing body of the College. The College was established in the year 1984, and is governed by its own constitution and bye-laws. The College is admittedly a private/Non-Government College, and was started without contribution from the Government. It is stated by the petitioners that in due course of time, the college became one of the elite educational institutions in the State of Meghalaya. The College was affiliated to the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) in the year 2003, and was included in the list of colleges prepared under Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, vide the letter dated 7.10.2004 of the University Grants Commission (UGC), and is accordingly made eligible to receive Central Assistant in terms of the Rules framed under Section 12(B) of the UGC Act. It is the case of the petitioners that the Governing Body of the College is solely responsible for the management of the college and appoints the teaching and non-teaching staff of the college and manages other affairs of the college, and is also not under the administrative control of the Education Department of the Government. The Directorate of Public Instructions, Meghalaya by the order bearing Memo dated 31.3.1987 had sanctioned an ad hoc grant-in-aid towards the pays and dearness allowances for some members of full time staff, but the remaining expenditures such as infrastructure costs, administrative expenses and the salaries of the remaining teaching and non-teaching staff of the college are borne by the college. It is the stated position of the petitioners that the sanction of ad hoc grant-in-aid so made was subject to finalization of the relevant rules governing sanction of ad hoc grant-in-aid to colleges in the State and that no such rules has been framed by the Government till date. The petitioners concede that such ad hoc grant-in-aid have been sanctioned to the college from time to time, the last of which was sanctioned on 15.12.2006 vide the order contained in Memo dated 15.12.2006 issued by the Directorate of Higher and Technical Education. Therefore, the petitioners are meeting all expenses of the college by themselves since January, 2007.
3. It is also the case of the petitioners that since the inception of the college, its Steering Committee have been duly constituted strictly in accordance with the Constitution of the college and the governing body of the college have, in turn, been elected by the Steering Committee every three years with due intimations to the Director of Higher & Technical Education, Meghalaya (the respondent No. 3) as the same is required for receiving the ad hoc grant-in-aid. According to the petitioners, the newly constituted Governing Body of the College for the period commencing from 1.8.2006 and ending on 31.7.2009 vide the Notification dated 31.7.2006 was duly forwarded to the Joint Director, Higher & Technical Education, Meghalaya on 7.8.2006 for formation. The Director, College Development Council, NEHU by his letter dated 13.12.2006 nominated two NEHU representatives to the Governing Body of the College. The petitioners aver that the Governing Body has since 1.8.2006 been functioning and discharging its duties smoothly and are taking all possible steps for all-round improvement of the college so that the college can achieve the highest standard of education and that there is no infirmity in the constitution of the Governing Body of the College, which still ropes in the founder-members of the college in the Governing Body. It is alleged by the petitioners that some interested persons, with oblique motives and being envious of the progress made by the college, started disturbing the smooth running of the college and, in furtherance of their disruptive policy, Shri H.B. Wahlang, the General Secretary of the Raid Laban Dorbar Shnong, Shillong (the respondent No. 4) along with one D.S. Mawlong trespassed on the college premises and disturbed the running of the college by unauthorisedly holding a meeting with the staff of the college thereon. This incident led the petitioners to lodge an FIR bearing dated 1.12.2007 before the Officer-in-Charge of Laban Police Station.
4. It is also the case of the petitioners that they, much to their consternation, received the letter dated 5.12.2007 from the respondent No. 3 informing them of the receipt by his office of the proposal for constitution of the Governing Body of the College from the respondent No. 4 vide the letter dated 3.12.2007 in addition to receiving the proposal of Shri S. Nongbri, Principal of the College in that behalf and, therefore, advised the sponsoring body and other interested persons including parents and guardians of the students, teachers, etc. to sit together and sole the matter amicably by sending only one proposal for constitution of the Governing Body, which is acceptable to all. According to the petitioners, the respondent No. 3 was aware of the new Governing Body already constituted on 31.7.2006 with Mr. J.D. Pohrmen as its President and Mr. S. Nongbri as its Secretary, but has deliberately referred to the letter dated 29.6.2007 issued by the said S. Nongbri, the then Principal of College, in a totally different context, and the question of reconstitution of the Governing Body of the College before the expiry of the existing Governing Body so constituted on 31.7.2006 (which expires only on 31.7.2009) does not arise. The petitioners contend that they were never aware of the proposal coming from the respondent No. 4 prior to the letter of the respondent No. 3, and the so-called proposal of the respondent No. 4 constituting the Governing Body of the College is unauthorized, and cannot be acted upon and that the respondent No. 3 ought to have rejected or ignored the same, but instead unduly favoured the body represented by the respondent No. 4 and proceeded to, without authority of law, directed the reconstitution of the Governing Body. The petitioners by their letter dated 17.12.2007, under protest, replied the letter of the respondent No. 3 and stated therein, inter alia, that the college is strictly governed by their constitution for Constitution of the Governing Body; any other procedure adopted for such constitution would be contrary to the constitution and illegal, that the present Governing Body is duly constituted without any infirmity warranting no interference from any quarter, that the respondent No. 4, which is not a member of the College, has no authority to submit any proposal for Constitution of the Governing Body of the College, that the proposal coming from the respondent No. 4 for Constitution of the Governing Body of the College is not only illegal but will amount to undue interference in the governance of the College, and the same does not deserve any consideration and that the present Governing Body constituted by the petitioners should be considered as the sole Governing Body of the College. The petitioners further state that though their reply was received by the respondent No. 3, he did not consider the same and instead by his letter dated 7.1.2007(sic) directed the Secretary of the School and Mr. Loster Sunn to attend a meeting convened by him on 30.1.2008 to discuss the Governing Body members proposed by each of the parties. While this controversy was going on, the respondent No. 3 issued the impugned order whereupon this writ petition was filed by the petitioners.
5. Both the State-respondents and the private respondents resisted the writ petition and filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition. The case of the State-respondents as pleaded in their affidavit-in-opposition is that though the college is a non-government college, yet it received grants-in-aid from the Government for payment of salaries and dear-ness allowances to some of the full-time staff in the same way as deficit grant-in-aid colleges with result that the Government does have the power to control the management of the college whenever any dispute arises so as to safeguard the academic interest of the student community in particular and the proper management of the college in general. It is conceded by the State respondents that the grant-in-aid for the college has not been released since January, 2007 due to the ongoing dispute between the rival parties and pending finalization of Constitution of the Governing Body of the College. It is asserted by the State-respondents that the management of the college is governed by the provisions of the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1965, which is made applicable to the aided colleges of Meghalaya and that the respondent No. 3 is the controlling authority, and his approval is required for any action taken in the matter of the affairs and management of the college and further that the list of the office bearers and members of the Governing Body of the College submitted by the petitioners was not approved since the same was constituted contrary to the rules. According to the State-respondents, it was when they received two separate proposals from the petitioners and the private respondents for Constitution of the Governing Body of the College, the rival parties were advised to settle their disputes amicably and submit a mutually acceptable Governing Body to the State-respondents for approval, but no fresh proposal in this behalf has been till date: such proposal would be approved subject to fulfillment of the rules. It is also the case of the State-respondents that the provisions of the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1965 are applicable to the State of Meghalaya and that the order at Annexure-5 sanctioning the grant-in-aid to the college also prescribes that the college should be governed by the Education Department Rules and Orders. The State-respondents, therefore, rejected the contention of the petitioners that the State Government has no power in the affairs of the college or that it has no right to interfere with the management of non-government colleges like Raid Laban College to safeguard the academic interest of the students in particular and the academic atmosphere of the college in general. Due to the claim and counter-claim made by the petitioners and the private respondents and also on account of mismanagement of the college and with a view to safeguard the interest of the students, claim the State-respondents, they have been compelled to invoke Rule 8 of the Rules and take over control and management of the college. The State-respondents maintain that the college is governed by both the letter and spirit of the Rules. Contending that the writ petition is devoid of merits, the State-respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. The case of the private respondents, as projected in their affidavit-in opposition, is that the college was established at the initiative of the people of Raid Laban represented by the respondent No. 4, which is a conglomerate of eight villages, to cater to the educational needs of the students of the eight villages and that the land where the college locates belongs to the Raid Laban Dorbar. The private respondents further claim that 75% of the total expenditures of the college is met by Government grant, and the college is governed by the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1965, as adopted in the State of Meghalaya. According to the private respondents, due to mismanagement of the college and illegal appointments made by the Governing Body, the Government withheld release of grant to the college, which is reflective of the dismal performance of the management, and to bring the college on to the right track, the Dorbar as the sponsoring body of the college called a public meeting attended by the teaching staff of the college. The meeting finally resolved to reconstitute the Governing Body of the College, and the proposal for reconstitution of the Governing Body was accordingly sent to the Government. It is pointed out by the private respondents that the public meeting had to be convened by the Dorbar after receiving the letter dated 14.9.2007 from the teaching staff of the College highlighting therein the illegal appointment of the Principal and the warning given by the University in the letter dated 29.10.2007 for withdrawal of affiliation. The private respondents contends that the Governing Body of the College was constituted contrary to the rules resulting in the mismanagement of the college and deterioration of the academic standard of the college and that the FIR was lodged by the petitioners out of sheer frustration, and the same was returned in F.R. The private respondents maintain that the Governing Body constituted by the petitioners have no standing as they have no authority to constitute the same; it is the prerogative of the State Government to constitute the Governing Body of the College. Neither the presence of the two representatives of the University nor the continuance of the grant-in-aid to the college can confer the stamp of approval to such Governing Body which does not conform to the rules. The Dorbar, being vitally interested in the smooth functioning of the college, has every right to submit its proposal for Constitution of the Governing Body to the Government, which, in turn, has the power to accept or reject it. It is further contended by the private respondents that the appointment of Acting Principal by the outgoing Governing Body by adopting the method of pick and choose and in neglecting a competent and senior teacher calls for taking over of the college by the Government. In support of this contention, the private respondents relies on the letter dated 29.10.2007 of the Director of the College Development Council, NEHU addressed to the Governing Body of the college, which is at Annexure-A. According to the private respondents, it has been due to their relentless efforts that the college came into being, but vested interest in the outgoing Governing Body have spoilt the image of the College and put the career of about two thousand students in jeopardy. It is thus submitted by the private respondents that the impugned order is justified on the facts and circumstances of the case and does not need any interference from this Court and that the writ petition does not disclose any cause of action, and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Since the validity of the impugned order dated 1.2.2008 is in question, it may be apposite at the very outset to reproduce the same in extenso:
No. EDN. 280/2006/82 Dated Shillong, the 1st
February, 2008
Whereas it has come to the notice of the Government that the term of the Governing Body of Raid Laban College had expired on 01.08.2006; and
Whereas it has not been possible to reconstitute the Governing Body due to the fact that there are two parties opposing each other the composition of the new Governing Body; and
Whereas the dispute between the two parties has gone to the extent of one party filing an FIR against the other for criminal trespass on the College premises on 1.12.2007; and
Whereas the academic atmosphere and peace and tranquility of the College has been disturbed thereby; and
Whereas, due to the retirement of the Principal of the College an atmosphere of uncertainty prevails in the College due to the installation of an acting Principal of the College without going through the procedure of advertisement and interview followed by approval by the Government; and
Whereas the two parties could not come to a compromise despite having been given direction and opportunity to do so; and
Whereas the Government had made two attempts to bring the two parties to an amicable settlement and the attempts could not succeed due to the fact that one of the parties, namely, the one headed by Shri S. Nongbri, Ex-Principal of the College had refused to attend the meetings convened by the Director, Higher & Technical Education and by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education Department for the purpose of bringing about an amicable settlement; and
Whereas there is dispute regarding the mode of appointment of the acting Principal and her relative seniority vis-a-vis the other Lecturer of the College; and
Whereas the University Examinations are scheduled to commence from the 13th March 2008 and the MBOSE examination are scheduled to commence from 12th March 2008; and
Whereas the promotion examinations from Class XI to Class XII are scheduled to be held sometime in February 2008; and
Whereas the academic interests of the students of Raid Laban College numbering more than 2000 in number is in jeopardy as a result of the aforesaid developments in the College; and
Whereas the Government is duty bound to hold the academic interests of the students uppermost and to take all necessary action to safeguard their interest; and
Whereas it is clear from the foregoing paragraphs that an abnormal situation prevails in the College;
Now, therefore, the Governor of Meghalaya, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 9 of the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1965 adopted by the Government of Meghalaya, hereby takes over the control and management of Raid Laban College and appoints Shri W. Lyngdoh, Joint Director, Higher & Technical Education as the Administrator for the Control and Management of the College and to function as the Principal of the College and to carry on with the day-to-day administration of the College under the orders of the Director, Higher & Technical Education for a period of 3(three) months w.e.f. the date of the issue of this Order.
Sd/-(L. Roy)Commissioner & Secy.To the Govt. of Meghalaya,Education Department.
8. At this stage, I may also reproduce the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules, which has been invoked by the State-respondents for taking over control of the college, which is as under:
8. On the recommendation of the Director of Public Instruction Assam, the State Government may, if satisfied, after due notice and enquiry, order reconstitution of the Governing Body, the Director of Public Instruction, Assam may take over the control and management of the college and ask the Principal to carry on the day to day administration under the Director of Public Instruction's orders for a period of not exceeding 3 months.
9. There is no dispute at the bar that Raid Laban College is a private institution or otherwise known as Non-Government College and that it used to receive grant-in-aid from the State respondents under the ad hoc system of maintenance till 15.12.2006. A typical sanction order of such grant-in-aid is found at Annexure-V series to the writ petition, which shows, among others, that the total ad hoc grant-in-aid to the College covers 75% of the approved expenditures of the College, while 25% of the same was to be borne by the College and that the sanction was purely on ad hoc basis pending finalization of the relevant rules governing sanction of ad hoc grant-in-aid to the college. It is contended by Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the college is merely a private institution receiving ad hoc grant-in-aid from the State Government and is not a deficit-grant-in-aid, which is absolutely different from a college receiving ad hoc grant-in-aid. According to the learned senior counsel, while private colleges receiving deficit grant-in-aid are governed by the provisions of the Assam Aided, College Management Rules, 1965 ('Management Rules' for short), colleges like Raid Laban College, which merely receive ad hoc grant-in-aid are governed by the Management Rules. Once it is held that the college is not a deficit grant-in-aid college, contends the learned senior counsel, the State-respondents cannot invoke the provisions of Rule 8 of the Management Rules to take control of the College, and the impugned order made thereunder has no legs to stand, and is illegal and cannot be sustained in law. On the order hand, Mr. N.D. Chulai, the learned Counsel for the State-respondents, while supporting the impugned order, submits that there is no distinction between a college receiving ad hoc grant-in-aid and a college receiving grant-in-aid under the system of deficit grant-in-aid for the purpose of the Management Rules. Once a private college receives a grant-in-aid, be it by way of ad hoc or otherwise, it comes within the sweep of the Management Rules, and the State-respondents are well within its power to take over the control of the College by invoking Rule 8 of the Management Rules. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the State that the Governing Body of the College has undoubtedly mismanaged the College, and it is with a view to restore healthy academic atmosphere in the College that the State-respondent had to take recourse to this unavoidable drastic step, which is definitely in the interest of the student community of the college in particular and the teaching and non-teaching staff of the College in general. M.R. Kar, the learned Counsel for the private respondents, fully endorse the contentions of the learned Counsel for the State and additionally contends that it is the Raid Laban Dorbar, comprising of eight villages, represented by the private respondents, which initiated the establishment of the College with a view to cater to the educational needs of the students of those localities, and the land upon which stands the College belongs to none other than the Raid Laban Dorbar. It also contended by the learned Counsel that when it was found that the Government did not release grant to the College after 15.12.2006 due to mismanagement of the College and illegal appointment of the Principal, which has direct effect on the performance of the College and also that warning was given by the NEHU for withdrawal of affiliation, the private respondents, as the sponsoring body, had to intervene by calling a public meeting attended by the teaching staff of the College and that the meeting accordingly resolved to reconstitute the Governing Body of the College. The learned Counsel for the private respondents submits that the intervention of the State-respondents at their behest is perfectly justified, and refutes the contention of the petitioners that the private respondents have no locus standi to join issue with them.
10. On reading of the pleadings of the parties and upon giving my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the rival parties, the principal question which falls for consideration is as to whether the College is deficit grant-in-aid college or not. If the answer is in the affirmative, there will no difficulty in holding that the impugned order perfectly in order. On the other hand, if the answer to that question is in the negative, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Before proceeding further, it may at this stage be necessary to dispose of the contention of the private respondents that the College is sponsored by the Raid Laban Dorbar. A perusal of the Constitution of the College, which is at Annexure-II to the writ petition, the contents whereof are not in dispute, does not appear to indicate that the eight villages represented by the private respondents in the conglomerate under the name and style of 'Raid Laban Dorbar' are members of the Steering Committee constituted under Article 5 or members of the Governing Body elected by the Steering Committee under Article 13 either as individual village or collectively as Raid Laban Dorbar. Neither is there any evidence to show that the Dorbar is the sponsoring body of the College. On my aforesaid findings, I am not persuaded to hold that the Dorbar is the sponsoring body of the College. Coming now to the actual bone of contention, unfortunately, there is no definition of the term 'Aided College' in the Management Rules. The term 'Aided College', however, is defined in Clause 2(a) of the Meghalaya Aided College Employees Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme, 1985 to mean a recognized private college which receives grant-in-aid under the deficit Scheme, from the State Government or any other authority designated by the State Government. Then, the term 'Government Aided College' is defined by Rule 3(f) of Aided College Employees Rules, 1960 as a college receiving maintenance grant from the State Government. It may be noted that this Rules has been adopted by the State of Meghalaya subject to the instructions issued by the Government of Meghalaya, the right of administration vested in the minority bodies, the conditions attached to the scheme of deficit grant-in-aid, and the U.G.C. Scale of pay. In my opinion, the definition of the term 'Aided College' and the term 'Government Aided College' given in both aforesaid Rules will be applicable to the definition of the term 'Aided College' used in the Management Rules. So defined, therefore, the term 'Aided College' in the Management Rules can only mean a private college receiving maintenance grant from the State Government. What are the conditions for extending grant-in-aid to a private college or a Non-Government College? These are prescribed in the Principles and Conditions of Grant-in-Aid to the Aided Colleges contained in Memo No. 11044-69 dated 5.6.1959 issued by the Director of Public Instructions, Assam, which are also admittedly applicable to the State of Meghalaya. Without elaborating on this aspect of the matter, which is not really necessary for resolving the issue involved in this case, one thing stands, namely, an Aided College, to receive grant-in-aid under the Deficit-Grant-in-Aid Scheme, college must be one which is governed by the provisions of the Management Rules.
11. Before proceeding further, it will be apposite at this stage to have a bird's eye view of the provisions of the Management Rules. Under Rule 2, it is provided that there shall be a Governing Body in each of the Government Aided Colleges to manage the college and do all such other acts and things as may be requisite for the purpose. Rule 3 in terms says that the Governing Body shall consist of the Principal and the Vice Principal as Ex officio members, two representatives of the teaching staff to be elected annually by the teachers from among themselves, the Inspector of Schools of the Circle or an Educationist nominated by the State Government, two persons (official or non-official) to be nominated by the State Government, two persons to be nominated by the University, Donor's nominee, three persons other than the members of the teaching staff to be co-opted by the other members, at least one of whom shall be a guardian and another a lady, the President to be nominated by the State Government and the Secretary to be nominated by the State Government and if the Principal is not so no nominated, he shall be Joint Secretary. Rule 5 provides that the Governing Body shall meet at once a quarter, while Rule 6 requires the College to satisfy the Gauhati University (NEHU in this case) that it is under the management of a regularly constituted Governing Body on which the teaching staff is adequately represented. Then Rule 7 says that the proceedings of the Governing Body's meeting shall be sent to the Director of Public Instruction and the Gauhati University (NEHU in the case of Meghalaya) and no final deci-sion regarding appointment, promotion and dismissal of the members of the teaching staff including the Principal or construction involving Rs. 5,000/- or more shall be taken without prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction, Assam (Director of Higher & Technical Education in the case of Meghalaya). Then comes Rule 8, which has already been reproduced earlier and which is the subject matter of this proceeding. Then Rule 10 provides that unless on an emergency, the meting of the Governing Body shall be held in the college premises and the records of the meeting shall be regularly kept and be open to inspection by the Director of Public Instruction, Assam and Gauhati University (Director of Higher & Technical Education and NEHU respectively in the case of Meghalaya). Then, Rule 11 says that the tenure of the Governing Body shall be ordinarily for 3 years from the date of formation, which can be extended by the Director of Public Instruction (Director of Higher & Technical Education in Meghalaya) pending reconstitution of the Governing Body. Again, Rule 15 indicates the duty of the Secretary of the Governing Body to submit annual report to the Director of public Instruction and to the Gauhati University (NEHU in this case) on the general conditions an progress of the College. From the provisions of the Management Rules indicated above, it is obvious that the State Government has considerable, if not pervasive, control over the colleges, which are in receipt of maintenance grant under the deficit system sanctioned by the Government Even in the matter of composition of the members of the Governing Body and the appointment of the President and Secretary thereof or decision regarding the appointment, promotion and dismissal of the members of the teaching staff including the Principal or construction involving Rs. 5,000/- or more, the State Government is actively involved or has complete say. It is thus in the fitness of things as well as logical that the State Government is given the power to take over the control and management of colleges, which are in receipt of maintenance grant under the deficit system sanctioned by the Government and ask the Principal to carry on the day to day administration under the order of Director of Public Instruction (Director of Higher & Technical Education in Meghalaya) for a period not exceeding three months. In the case, I must remind myself that I am not called upon in this case to examine the validity of the arrangement appointing the Joint Director of Higher & Technical Education to carry on the day to day administration of the College; I refrain from doing so.
12. A perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State-respondent, or, for that matter, the affidavit-in-opposition of the private respondents will show that none of the respondents have denied the assertions made by the petitioners in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the writ petition that the College was established by them with the funds procured from various private sources; that the college has since its inception been strictly governed by its Constitution (Annexure-II) in the matter of election of the Steering Committee and the Governing Body, that the Governing Body appoints the teaching and non-teaching staff of the College and manages the affairs of the College; that the College is not under the administrative control of the Education Department of the Government of Meghalaya and that apart from the ad-hoc grant-in-aid sanctioned by the Government towards meeting the pays and D.A. of some full-time members of the staff 15.12.2006, when it was altogether stopped as noted earlier, the College did not receive any other grant or aid from the Government, and has been meeting its infrastructure expenses and administrative expenses including the salaries of the remaining members of the teaching and non-teaching staff. As per the Constitution of the College, the Governing Body of the College is elected by the Steering Committee every three years, while the Steering Committee comprises of the Chairman, Vice Chairman, General Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer, 15 members by election, ten members by co-option, and the same is to be elected by the Annual General Meeting. The composition of the Governing Body is also revealing, and the same consists of the President, Vide-President, Secretary, Joint-Secretary, eleven members; six from (i) Laban, (ii) Madan Laban, (iii) Lumparing, (iv) Rilbong, (v) Kenches Trace, (vi) Lawsohtun and the rest five from social workers from Raid Laban vide Article 13 of the Constitution. Reading Article 13 of the Constitution of the College on the composition of the Governing Body of the College and the composition of the Governing Body prescribed by the management Rules inRule3 in juxtaposition plainly indicates that the petitioners never followed the provisions of the Management Rules, and have, on the contrary, been governed by their own Constitution for constituting the Governing Body. Neither denial to that effect nor averments to the contrary has been made by the respondents in their respective affidavits-in-opposition. It is thus quite apparent that the State-respondents proceeded to extend Ad-hoc grants-in-aid to the College since 1987 by accepting the Governing Body constituted in accordance with the Constitution of the College and not in accordance with the Management Rules. That apart, the orders sanctioning the grants-in-aid to the College, which are at Annexure-V series, indicates that the aid extended to the College is not normal grant-in-aid under the system of deficit grant-in-aid as the use of the term 'Ad hoc' suggests. In 'Advanced Law Lexicon' by P. Ramanatha Aiyer, 3rd Edn., the word 'ad-hoc' is defined to mean for a particular purpose or special purpose. It can, therefore, only means something which is not regular or permanent, but connotes the idea of being temporary, for a particular purpose or for a particular period. Moreover, the terms of the sanction order therein specifically mentions that:
The sanction is purely on ad hoc basis pending finalization of the relevant rules governing sanction of ad hoc grant-in-aid to colleges in the State
Which goes to show, among others, that rules governing sanction of ad hoc grant-in-aid for colleges in the State has not yet been finalized and that the Management Rules governing normal or regular aided colleges receiving maintenance grants under the Deficit System is not applicable to a private college like the College receiving ad hoc grant-in-aid. On my aforesaid findings, I find considerable force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the College is not a deficit grant-in-aid college governed by the Management Rules and that the State-respondents cannot take recourse to the provisions of Rule 8 and take over the control and management of the College.
13. In the words of the Apex Court in IITT College of Engineering v. State of A.P. : AIR2003SC3629 (at para 13), directions to check maladministration in conformity with the provisions of the relevant statutes is one thing and deprivation of management to the private body which established the institution is another thing, and the latter should not have been resorted to without authority of law. I am also tempted to quote the observations of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka : AIR2003SC355 (para 55), which are in the following terms:
55. The Constitution recognizes the right of individual or religious denomination, or a religious or linguistic minority to establish an education institution. If aid or financial assistance is not sought, then such institution will be a private unaided institution. Although, in Unni Krishnan case [reported in : [1993]1SCR594 the Court emphasized the important role played by private unaided institutions and the need for private funding, in the scheme that was framed, restrictions were placed on some of the important ingredients relating to the functioning of an educational institution. There can be no doubt that in seeking affiliation or recognition, the Board or the University or the affiliating or recognizing authority can lay down conditions consistent with the requirement to ensure the excellence of education. It can, for instance, indicate the quality of the teachers by prescribing the minimum qualifications that they must possess, and the courses of study and curricula. It can, for some reasons, also stipulate the existence of infrastructure sufficient for its growth, as a prerequisite. But the essence of a private educational institution is the autonomy that the institution must have in its management and administration. There, necessarily, has to be a difference in the administration of private unaided institutions and the government-aided institutions. Whereas, in the latter case, the Government will have greater say in the administration, including admissions and fixing of fees, in the case of private unaided institutions, maximum autonomy in the day-to day administration has to be with the private unaided institutions. Bureaucratic or governmental interference in the administration of such an institution will undermine its independence. While an educational institutional is not a business, in order to examine the degree of independence that can be given to a recognized educational institution, like any private entity that does not seek aid or assistance from the Government, and that exists by virtue of the funds generated by it, including its loans or borrowings, it is important to note that the essential ingredients of the management of the private institution include the recruiting students and staff, and the quantum of fee that is to be charged.
14. From the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court, it is made abundantly clear that private educational institution like the College must have sufficient autonomy in running and managing their own affairs. In the name of checking maladministration, perceived or real, the State Government cannot deprive the Governing Body of the College of its right to manage and run the College. As found by me earlier, the College is not a deficit college governed by the provisions of the Management Rules and is, on the contrary, a Non-Government College or a private institution receiving an ad hoc grant-in-aid from time to time from the Government, which can also withdraw the same at its sweet will, for which no legitimate grievance can be made by the College. It is an admitted position of the contesting parties that the Government has stopped extending grant-in-aid to the petitioners with effect from 15.12.2006 for failing to comply with its directions. The Government has the undoubted power to do so. The petitioners are also not challenging the stoppage of the Ad-hoc grant-in-aid to the College. They are aggrieved by the action of the State-respondents in taking over the management and control of their privately managed college against their wishes. I have already held that the provisions of the Management Rules are not applicable to the privately managed college like Raid Laban Collage. No other statutory provisions are placed before me by the State-respondents whereunder they can take over the control and management of the College. Consequently, I have no alternative but to hold that the impugned order infringes the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution to run and manage the College owned by them. The action of the State-respondents will also amount to deprivation of their right to property constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
15. The net result of the foregoing discussion is that the writ petition succeeds.
16. The impugned order bearing No. EDN. 280/2Q06/82 dated 1.2.2008 issued by the respondent No. 2 be and is hereby quashed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs
.