AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sathish Ninan, J
The petitioner is a member of the syndicate of the second respondent University. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order of the first respondent-Chancellor, suspending Exts.P3 and P5 resolutions of the Syndicate and the Board of Governors, respectively.
As per Ext.P3 resolution, the syndicate resolved to constitute a, “Syndicate Standing Committee on University Administrative Affairs”. Ext.P3 states that the constitution of such Committee is to give administrative support to the Vice Chancellor and Registrar. Ext.P5 is the resolution of the Board of Governors, deferring the implementation of certain transfer orders of employees.
As per Ext.P6, the Chancellor, invoking the powers under Section 10(3) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 (for short, “the Act”), suspended the operation of Exts.P3 and P5 resolutions, until further orders. The said order, Ext.P6, is assailed in this writ petition.
Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.Ravindran on behalf of the petitioner, and the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.Gopakumaran Nair on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.
The challenge against Ext.P6 order is on the ground of, violation of the mandates under Section 10(3) of the Act. The Section provides for grant of an opportunity to show-cause against any proposed order of suspension, prior to passing of such order. Ext.P6 was not preceded by a show-cause and hence is in violation of the said provision, is the contention.
Section 10(3) of the Act is extracted hereunder :-
“The Chancellor shall, after obtaining report in writing from the Vice-Chancellor, suspend or modify any resolution, order or proceedings of any authority, body, committee or officer, which in the opinion of the Chancellor is not in conformity with this Ordinance, Statues, Ordinances or Regulations or is against the interest of the University and the University, authority, body, committee and officer shall comply with the same.
Provided that, before making any such order, the Chancellor shall call upon the University, authority, body, committee or officer, as the case may be, to show cause within the period specified, why such an order should not be, to show cause within the period specified, why such an order should not be made, and if any cause is shown, the Chancellor shall consider the same and after consulting the Government wherever he deems it necessary, decide the action to be taken in the said matter, and such decision shall be final.”
The section empowers the Chancellor to suspend or modify any resolution of any authority which in his opinion is not in conformity with Ordinance, Statutes or Regulations, or is against the interest of the University. However, the proviso mandates that, before exercise of such power, the Chancellor shall call upon the authority to show-cause as to why such an order of suspension or modification should not be made.
In the case at hand, the leaned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents conceded that no such opportunity of show cause was given before passing of Ext.P6 order of suspension. However, the learned Senior Counsel would argue that, the resolutions which were suspended by the Chancellor were grossly illegal and warranted immediate action, which necessitated the issuance of Ext.P6 order. It was further argued that, even a post decisional show-cause notice would be sufficient. The petitioners would be issued with a show-cause notice to which they can give their explanations, and thereafter a final order could be passed by the first respondent, it is contended.
I am unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. The power to suspend Exts.P3 and P5 resolutions was traced to Section 10(3) of the Act. The proviso to Section 10(3) as noted above, in unambiguous terms stipulate for an opportunity to show-cause “before making any such order”. When the power is traced under a statutory provision, compliance in terms thereof is the mandate. Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner and following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure (See Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253), State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh (AIR 1964 SC 358), Cherukuni Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 13 SCC 722, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Abhilash Lal & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 234, OPTO Circuit India Ltd. v. Axis Bank & Ors. (2021) 6 SCC 707, UOI v. Mahendra Singh (2022 SCC OnLine SC 909). The statutory prescription of grant of opportunity to show-cause having not preceded Ext.P6 order, the same is liable to be interfered with.
Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order is quashed. However, this shall be without prejudice to the right to proceed afresh in accordance with Section 10(3) of the Act.