Dinananth Sharma vs Union Of India & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Appellant filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1167 of 2025, seeking following reliefs:-

“I. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature Certiorarified mandamus to declare the impugned letter of Ministry of Education, Government of India dated 03.03.2025 (here to annexed as Annexure No. 1) as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, malafide and further to quash the same along with its effect and operations or to mould the relief appropriately keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the petition.

II. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to amend the Memorandum of Association of the Gurukul Kangri (Deemed to be University) Haridwar in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Deemed to be Universities) Regulations 2023 or to mould the relief appropriately keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the petition.”

Appellant also filed an Interim Relief Application before learned Writ Court, in which he prayed that effect and operation of the impugned letter dated 03.03.2025 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Education (Department of Higher Education) be stayed during pendency of the writ petition.

Learned Single Judge granted four weeks’ time to respondents to the writ petition for filing counter affidavit, vide order dated 08.05.2025 and passed the following order on the Interim Relief Application:

“Having considered, this Court is of the view that interim relief application in this matter may only be decided once parties are permitted to file objections.”

This intra-court Appeal is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the aforesaid order passed by learned Single Judge.

Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 7 to 9 submits that the order dated 08.05.2025, impugned in this Appeal, does not qualify to be a judgment, as it only provides that the Interim Relief Application shall be considered after granting one opportunity to file objection to the respondents. He further submits that learned Single Judge was justified in giving opportunity to the respondents to file objection to the Interim Relief Application, which is in consonance with Rules of Natural Justice. He submits that none of the rights of the parties are decided by the impugned order, therefore, in view of the provision contained in Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of Court 1952, this intra-court appeal is not maintainable. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of Court, 1952 is extracted below for ready reference:

“5. Special appeal. An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttarakhand Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge.”

In his writ petition, appellant challenged a communication issued by Central Government.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that by the impugned communication dated 03.03.2025, Ministry of Education, Government of India, permitted Gurukul Kangri (Deemed to be University), Haridwar to continue with its existing Memorandum of Association in disregard of the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2023. He submits that UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2019 were repealed by the UGC Regulations, 2023, notified on 02.06.2023, therefore, Gurukul Kangri (Deemed to be University) could not have been permitted to continue with its existing Memorandum of Association. Thus, it is contended that the UGC (IDTBU) Regulations, 2019 cannot be permitted to operate after its repeal, for giving some benefit to Gurukul Kangri (Deemed to be University), Haridwar.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 7 to 9 submits that the impugned communication dated 03.03.2025 is referable to Section 20 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, which empowers the Central Government to issue directions. He further submits that Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956 authorises the University Grants Commission to make regulations consistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. He further submits that the Regulations made under Section 26 are subservient to the Rules made by Central Government under Section 25 of the Act. He thus submits that the Central Government exercised its statutory powers under Section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956 by issuing a direction that Gurukul Kangri (Deemed to be University), Haridwar can continue with its existing Memorandum of association till the end of financial year 2027-28 subject to certain conditions enumerated in the aforesaid letter.

We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 to 9 that without considering provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 especially the interplay between Section 20 & 26 of the said Act, the issues raised in the writ petition cannot be decided. The scope and contours of power available to Central Government under Section 20 of the Act will have to be examined while deciding the writ petition.

Thus, learned Single Judge was justified in granting opportunity to the respondents to file their objections to the Interim Relief Application before passing any interim order.

Thus, any interference with the order passed by learned Single Judge, at this stage, would not be warranted.

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the appellant to make prayer before learned Writ Court for expeditious disposal of the writ petition.