24 April 1964
Supreme Court


Case number: Appeal (civil) 279 of 1964






DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/04/1964


CITATION:  1965 AIR  601            1964 SCR  (7) 879

ACT: Bihar  State Universities (Patna, University of Bihar,  Bha- galpur  and Ranchi Act). 1960 (Bihar 14 of 1960), ss.  2(d), 4(10) 30(d) and (e), 60(a)(ii)-Amendment Act, 1961 (Bihar II of  1962),  s.  35,  Statutes  2(4),  3(1)--Order  by  Vice- Chancellor  reconstituting  Governing  Body  of   affiliated college-Validity.

HEADNOTE: The  Vice-Chancellor  of the Bihar University  by  an  order dated  January 13, 1963 directed the reconstitution  of  the Governing Body of the Rajendra College, Chapra, which was  a public institution founded by public charities and was affi- liated  to the University under s. 2(d) of the  Bihar  State Universities  (Patna,  University of  Bihar,  Bhagalpur  and Ranchi)  Act,  1960,  removed the  appellant,  who  was  the Secretary  of the College and nominated certain  persons  as members of the Governing Body.  The Act of 1960 was  amended by Act II of 1962 and s. 35 of the Amending Act provided for the dissolution of the Senate Syndicate and Academic Council functioning  prior  to it and for the  constitution  of  new bodies  in  their place and authorised  the  Vice-Chancellor pending  such reconstitution to exercise their powers for  a period not exceeding nine months.  In exercise of the  power conferred  by  this section the Vice-Chancellor  framed  new statutes  under  which  he purported to  pass  the  impugned orders.   Clause 2(4) of the new statutes conferred  on  the Vice-Chancellor   the   power  to  amend   or   revise   the constitution  of  the  affiliated  colleges  and  cl.   3(l) empowered  the syndicate either on its own motion or at  the instance  of  the  Vice-Chancellor  to  dissolve  and  order constitution of Governing Bodies.  It further empowered  the cancellation  of  grants-in-aid to the  colleges  concerned. The proviso to cl. 3(l) required that reasonable opportunity must  be given to the Governing Body before any  action  was taken under the clause.  The appellant moved the Patna  High Court  for  a  writ  quashing the  impugned  order  and  the statutes  on  which  it was made.  His  case  was  that  the relevant statutes were ultra vires and as such the order was



unsustainable.  The High Court held that the impugned  order could not be justified under cl. 3(l) as the proviso had not been  complied with but that the order was valid  under  cl. 2(4).   It further held that the impugned statutes could  be justified by s. 60(a)(ii) which was introduced by Act II  of 1962, empowering the Vice-Chancellor to make adaptations  or modification in the pre-existing statutes. Held:The  Bihar  State University Act of  1960  made  a clear  ,distinction  between two  categories  of  collegiate institutions,   (1)  those  owned  and  maintained  by   the university  and  (2) others admitted or  affiliated  to  the University, as was apparent from ss. 4(10) and 30(d) and (e) of the Act.  While the University had undoubtedly the  power to  disaffiliate  an  institution belonging  to  the  second category  on  its  failure to  conform  to  reason.able  and legitimate  conditions under the Act subject to  which  :the affiliation was granted, it had no power to dissolve and 880 constitute the Governing Body of such an institution itself. Clause  2(4) of the Statutes was inconsistent with s.  30(d) of  the  Act and must be held to be invalid.   The  impugned order  passed  under  it  therefore  must  be  invalid   and inoperative. Clause 3(l) of the statute in so far as it proceeded on  the basis   that  the  syndicate  could  itself   dissolve   the Governing.  Body and order its reconstitution suffered  from the same infirmity as cl. 2(4).  That clause in so far at it gave the syndicatethe power to dissolve and reconstitute the Governing  Body  and cancel grants-in-aid to  an  affiliated college for non-compliance with its direction issued in that behalf must, consequently, be held to be invalid. The power conferred by s. 60(ii) of the Act must be read  in the  light  of  the  provisions of s.  30(d)  in  regard  to affiliated  colleges  and  since  statute  2(4)  was  itself invalid, the section could not justify the impugned order. In  resolving disputes between affiliated colleges  and  the university,  attempt should be made to respect the  autonomy of the colleges and reconcile the same with the  supervisory powers  of  the University intended to be exercised  in  the interest of efficiency and progress.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 279 of  1964. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated December 23, 1963 of the Patna High Court in M.   J. C.  No. 86 of 1963. M.C. Setalvad, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, S. C. Agarwar and M.K. Ramamurthy, for the appellant. C.K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, and S. P. Varma, for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. S.C.  Agarwal,  R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and M.  K.  Rama- murthy, for respondent No. 5. Sarjoo Prasad, S. L. Chhibber and B. P. Jha, for  respondent No. 8. D.   Goburdhun, for respondent No. 16. S.   P. Varma, for intervener No. 1. Dipak Datta Choudhri and A. K. Nag, for intervener No. 2. April 24, 1964.  The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR,  C.  J.- The writ petition from  which  this appeal  by  special  leave  arises had  been  filed  by  the appellant Bisheshwar Dayal Sinha by which he challenged  the validity  of the order issued by the Vice-Chancellor of  the Bihar University directing the reconstitution of the Govern-



ing  Body of the Rajendra College, Chapra, and of the  rele- vant  new statutes framed by him under which the said  order is  purported  to have been issued.  His case was  that  the relevant                             881 new statutes are ultra vires the authority of the Vice-Chan- cellor and the impugned order passed by him in pursuance  of the   said   relevant  statutes  is,   therefore,   illegal, inoperative and void.  Along with the petition filed by  the appellant,  four  other petitions had been  filed  by  other persons  seeking to obtain similar relief.  The  Patna  High Court has, in substance,, rejected the appellant’s case  and has  accordingly dismissed the appellant’s writ petition  as well  as  the other petitions filed by  other  persons.   On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Setalvad has contended that the view taken by the Patna High Court about the validity of the relevant  statutes  is  not sustainable and  that  the  said statutes  are  ultra vires with the  inevitable  consequence that the impugned order directing the reconstitution of  the Governing Body of the Rajendra College must also be held  to be invalid. The Rajendra College is an educational institution which has been  admitted  by  the Bihar University as  a  College,  as defined  in  section 2(d) of the  Bihar  State  Universities (Patna,  University  of  Bihar, Bhagalpur  and  Ranchi)  Act (Bihar Act XIV of 1960) (hereinafter called ’the Act’)  read with  Article I of Chapter XII of the Statutes framed  under the  Act.  The said college is a public institution  founded by public charities and is conducted under the management of a  Governing Body.  The first Governing Body of the  College was  formed by the citizens of Chapra who had assembled  for that  purpose  in  a meeting on the  31st  July  1938.   The Governing Body thus constituted consisted of 18 members;  it continued  to  function  until the  24th  July,  1940,  with additions  in  the personnel made from time to time  by  co- option.   Later,  in  1941, the  Governing  Body  adopted  a constitution  framed by the Principal of the College at  its request and that constitution governed the administration of the  college.  In due course, some further  amendments  were made in 1950.  After the passing of the University of  Bihar Act,  1951  (Bihar  Act XXVII of 1951) and  the  framing  of Chapter  XIII  of  the  Statutes under  the  said  Act,  the University  suggested  to the Governing Body  to  bring  its constitution in line with the provisions of Chapter XIII  of said Statutes.  Accordingly, modifications were made in  the constitution, and the constitution thus modified and amended from time to time was in operation at the relevant time. The  appellant had been elected Secretary to  the  Governing Body on the 3rd of June, 1961, and under the relevant  rules of  the  constitution, his term of office was  to  be  three accademic  sessions, and as such, it was to last until  31st May,  1964.  Meanwhile, by the impugned order passed by  the Vice Chancellor on the 13th January, 1963, the appellant has been  removed  from his position as  Secretary  and  another person has been appointed in his place.  That is the  reason why the 882 appellant moved the Patna High Court for appropriate writ or order quashing the impugned order and the relevant  statutes on which it purports to be based.  To his writ petition, the appellant impleaded 18 persons amongst them being respondent No.  1,  the  University  of Bihar,  respondent  No.  2  Mr. Srivastava, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Bihar,  and respondent No. 3 the Chancellor ’of the University of Bihar. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the  appellant



in  the present appeal, it is necessary to refer briefly  to the  relevant statutory provisions governing the affairs  of the  University of Bihar and its constituent colleges.   The first Act to which reference must be made is the  University of Bihar Act (Bihar Act XXVII of 1951).  This Act was passed in  August,  1951,  and the provisions enacted  by  it  were intended  to furnish a comprehensive code to  establish  and incorporate  an affiliating-cum-teaching University  in  the State  of Bihar at Patna.  In 1960, Bihar Act XIV  of  1960, which  we  are describing as the Act in the course  of  this judgment, came to be passed.  This Act was intended to  help the  establishment  and  incorporation  of  affiliating-cum- teaching  Universities at Patna, Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur  and Ranchi in the State of Bihar.  This Act was later amended by Acts 11 of 1962, XIII of 1962, and XVII of 1962.  The  first of these Amending Acts came into force on the 1st of  March, 1962;  the second on 21st April, 1962 and the third  on  the 16th October, 1962. At  this  stage, we may conveniently  mention  the  relevant provisions of the Act.  Section 2(d) defines a "college"  as meaning an institution admitted to or maintained by the Uni- versity,  in accordance with the provisions of the  Act,  in which  instruction  is  given,  subject  to  the  provisions contained  in  cl.  (15) of s. 4, to  the  students  of  the college  up  to  and including a standard  below  the  post- graduate   standard  under  conditions  prescribed  in   the Statutes.  This definition shows that the Act applies to two categories  of  colleges, the first category  consisting  of collegiate institutions admitted to the University, and  the other  maintained by the University.  Section  4  prescribes the  purposes and powers of the University.   Section  4(10) provides  that  one  of  the  purposes  and  powers  of  the University is to institute, maintain and manage colleges and hostels and to recognise colleges and hostels not maintained by the University.  This provision brings out the fact  that two  kinds of collegiate institutions would  be  functioning under  the University-those that are instituted by the  Uni- versity,  and  those that are admitted.  In  regard  to  the first  category of colleges, the power and purposes  of  the University  would be to institute, maintain and  manage  the colleges and hostels, and in regard to the other, the  power and purpose would be to recognise them, subject, of  course, to the                             883 conditions  imposed  in  that behalf.  For  the  purpose  of dealing with the main controversy between the parties in the present  appeal,  it  is  necessary to  bear  in  mind  this distinction    between   two   categories   of    collegiate institutions functioning under the Bihar University. Section  7  prescribes the Officers of the  University  who, are: the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor; the Treasurer; the Registrar;  the Deans of Faculties; the Finance Officer  and such other persons as may be declared by the Statutes to  be the  officers  of the University.  Section  16  defines  the authorities  of the University which are six; they are:  the Senate; the Syndicate; the Academic Council; the  Faculties; the Examination Board; and such other authorities as may  be declared  by  the  Statutes to be  the  authorities  of  the University.  Section 20 deals with powers and duties of  the Senate.   Under  s. 20(1), the Senate shall be  the  supreme governing  body of the University and shall have the  entire management  of,  and  superintendence  over,  the   affairs, concerns and property of the University; shall exercise  all the powers of the University, not otherwise provided for, to give  effect  to the provisions of the Act.   Section  20(2)



prescribes  in particular some of the powers and  duties  of the Senate; amongst them is included the power of making the Statutes.  and amending or repealing the same.   Section  21 deals with the Syndicate and its composition; and      s. 22 prescribes the powers and duties of the Syndicate. Section 30 deals with statutes.  Section 30(d) provides that subject  to  the  provisions of the Act,  the  Statutes  may provide  for  the admission of educational  institutions  as colleges  and the withdrawal of privileges from colleges  so admitted;  and  s.  30(e) provides  that  the  statutes  may provide  for  the institution of colleges  and  hostels  and their  maintenance  and management.  It would thus  be  seen that  proceeding  on  the basis  of  the  broad  distinction between collegiate institutions instituted by the University and  those  admitted or recognised by it, s.  30  makes  two separate  provisions  in  that behalf.   In  regard  to  the institutions  admitted  or  recognised,  the  Statutes   can provide   for   the  admission  or   recognition   of   such institutions and the withdrawal of such recognition, whereas in regard to the institutions instituted by the  University, the  Statutes  may  provide  for  the  institution  of  such colleges and their maintenance and management. Section 49 deals with the problem of relations of affiliated colleges with the University, and it provides that the  said relations  shall be governed by the Statutes to be  made  in that  behalf,  and it prescribes in particular some  of  the matters which may be covered by the said Statutes. Section  60  provides  for  the  continuance  of   Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules which were in force 884 under the Bihar Acts XXV and XXVII of 1961.  Section 60 (ii) empowers   the  Vice-Chancellor  to  make   adaptations   or modifications in the said Statutes, Ordinances,  Regulations and  Rules with the approval of the Chancellor in so far  as they  are not inconsistent with the provisions of  the  Act, and  when such adaptations or modifications are  made,  they would  be  deemed to have been made  under  the  appropriate provisions of the Act.  In other words, while continuing the operation  of  the  pre-existing Statutes,  power  has  been conferred  on  the Vice-Chancellor to  make  adaptations  or modifications   in  the  said  Statutes,  subject   to   the conditions  which  we have just indicated.   This  provision came  into  force on the 1st March, 1962 by  virtue  of  the amending provision prescribed by Act 11 of 1962. There is one more provision to which reference must be  made before  we  part with this topic.  Section 35 of Act  II  of 1962  provides for dissolution of the Senate, Syndicate  and Academic  Council functioning prior to the  commencement  of the  said Act and constitution of new Senate, Syndicate  and Academic  Council  in  their place.  It  provides  that  not withstanding  anything  contained in the Bihar  Act  XIV  of 1960,  the respective bodies established under s. 3  of  the said  Act in regard to the Universities covered by  the  Act shall  stand dissolved on the commencement of this  Act  and thereafter, as soon as may be, they shall be  reconstituted, and pending their reconstitution, the Vice-Chancellor  shall exercise  their  powers and perform their duties  under  the said  Act for a period not exceeding nine months  from  such commencement.  The result of this provision is to  authorise the Vice-Chancellor to exercise the powers and functions  of the respective bodies which stood dissolved, for nine months from  the  date of the operation of this  Amending  Act,  or until  the  said bodies were duly reconstituted.  It  is  by virtue  of the power conferred on him by this  section  that the Vice-Chancellor has purported to frame new Statutes some



of  which are challenged in the present proceedings and  has issued  the  impugned  order in pursuance of  the  said  new Statutes.   That, in brief, is the position with  regard  to the  statutory provisions in the light of which the  dispute between the parties has to be settled in the present appeal. The  two statutes which have been challenged before  us  may now  be set out.  This body of new Statutes came to be  pro- mulgated  on the 18th November, 1962.  After they were  thus promulgated, the Registrar of the University of Bihar  wrote to the Secretaries and Principals of all Admitted  Colleges, except  Constituent and Government Colleges, enquiring  from them  what action had to be taken by the Vice-Chancellor  or the Syndicate in regard to the constitution of the Governing Body of the respective Colleges and the appointment of 885 Office-bearers.  The new Statutes consist of 24 clauses, but for  the  purpose of the present appeal,, we  are  concerned only  with two of them.  Clause 2, sub-clause (4)  provides: "in the case of the constitution of the Governing Bodies  of admitted  colleges (except colleges owned and maintained  by Government)  framed prior to the making of  these  Statutes, the Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to amend or  revise the constitution wherever necessary in order to bring it, as far as possible, in conformity with the provisions of  these Statutes" Clause 3(l) reads thus: -               "The  Syndicate  may on its motion or  at  the               instance  of the Vice-Chancellor dissolve  and               order   constitution  of  Governing  Body   in               admitted  colleges or cancel its  grant-in-aid               to  the college concerned for any one or  more               of the following reasons:               (a)   that  the college has failed  to  comply               with  the directions issued by  the  Syndicate               under  the laws of the University  within  the               specified time;               (b)   that  the college has failed to  observe               the provisions of the laws of the University;               (c)   improper  utilisation  of  the   various               funds of the institution;               (d)   that  the  affairs of the  college  have               been grossly mismanaged.               Provided,   however,  that   before   ordering               dissolution  of the Governing Body  or  before               passing such order against the Governing  Body               the   Syndicate   shall  give   a   reasonable               opportunity  to  the Governing  Body  to  show               cause against such action." It  is  clear that cl. 2(4) of the  new  Statutes  expressly confers on the Vice-Chancellor the power to amend or  revise the  constitution of the affiliated colleges; and  cl.  3(l) empowers the Syndicate to dissolve and order constitution of their  Governing Bodies either on its own motion or  at  the instance of the Vice-Chancellor.  Clause 3(l) also  empowers the  Syndicate  to cancel its grant-in-aid  to  the  college concerned  for one or more of the four reasons specified  by it.   The  proviso  to cl. 3(l)  requires  that  before  the dissolution of the Governing Body is ordered, or any similar order  is passed under cl. 3(l), reasonable opportunity  has to  be  given to the Governing Body to show cause  why  such action should not be taken. In substance, the High Court has come to the conclusion that these  two  Statutes  and  the  impugned  order  are  valid. According  to the High Court, the impugned order  cannot  be justified under Statute 3(l) because an opportunity had not 886



been given to the Governing Body of the Rajendra College  as required  by  the proviso.  It has, however, held  that  the impugned order is valid having regard to the powers  confer- red  on  the Vice-Chancellor under Statute  2(4).   It  also appears that the High Court took the view that the  impugned Statutes  can be justified by reason of the fact that  power has been conferred on the Vice-Chancellor to make adaptation or modifications in the pre-existing Statutes by s. 60(ii). The  question which arises for our decision is  whether  the impugned  Statute  2(4) is valid, and if  yes,  whether  the impugned  order  is justified.  We may also have  to  decide whether  the impugned Statute 3(1) is invalid either  wholly or  in part.  The question as to whether the power  to  make adaptations  or modifications justifies the  impugned  order presents  no  difficulty,  because  we  have  come  to   the conclusion that the impugned Statute 2(4) is itself invalid, and  so,  the  impugned order must be struck  down  on  that ground.   If  the  statute on the  authority  of  which  the impugned order has been passed is itself invalid, the  power to make adaptations and modifications cannot help to sustain the  validity  of the impugned ’order.  The  power  to  make adaptations   and  modifications  conferred  on  the   Vice- Chancellor by s. 60(ii) of the Act must be read in the light of  the  substantive  provisions contained in  s.  30(d)  in regard  to  affiliated college, and they  can-not  obviously justify  the  impugned order if the  impugned  Statute  2(4) itself  is invalid.  This position cannot be  disputed,  and so,  we go back to the question as to whether  the  impugned statute 2(4) is valid. The  decision of this question presents also no  difficulty, because,  on  the  face  of  it,  the  impugned  statute  is inconsistent  with the relevant provisions of the  Act.   It will  be  recalled  that the Act proceeds  on  a  broad  and well--recognised  distinction  between  two  categories   of collegiate  institutions, one instituted by  the  University and  the other admitted to the University or  affiliated  to it.  Section 4(10) of the Act is based on this  distinction, and  s.  30(d) & (e) also proceed on the  same  distinction. Where  the  University instituted  collegiate  institutions, naturally  the  task  of  instituting is  the  task  of  the University,  and so, the management and the  maintenance  of the    said   institutions   is   also   the    University’s responsibility.   The  position is  substantially  different where   collegiate   institutions  are  started   by   other autonomous bodies and they seek admission or affiliation  to the  University.   In  regard to this  class  of  collegiate institutions, their institution as well as their  management and maintenance is not the direct concern of the University- ,  that is the concern of the autonomous educational  bodies which have sponsored them and which have undertaken the task of  instituting,  managing and maintaining them. it  is,  of course, true that when admitting or 887 affiliating  such  institutions, the University  can  impose reason.able   and  legitimate  conditions  subject  to   the provisions of the Act, and it follows that on the failure of such  college  either to conform to those conditions  or  on their committing breach of any of those conditions, it would be competent to the University under its relevant powers  to disaffiliate  them  .and deny them the  status  of  admitted colleges; but this power is very different from the power to constitute   the   Governing  Bodies  of   such   autonomous educational  bodies.   The University may  insist  upon  the observance  of conditions in respect of the  composition  of the  Governing Bodies, but it cannot direct the  composition



of the Governing Bodies itself; the two powers are  distinct and  separate.  Whereas in the case of institutions  started by  the University, the University has to decide  who  would constitute  the Governing Bodies, in the case of  affiliated institutions,  the University can only lay  down  conditions and regulations which must be satisfied before the Governing Bodies are constituted; who should constitute the  Governing Bodies  is a matter for the autonomous  educational  bodies, which  sponsor the collegiate institutions, to  decide;  how they should be formed, on what principle, and on what basis, are  matters  which  may  well  form  the  subjectmatter  of conditions  imposed by the University while  admitting  such colleges  or  affiliating  them.   This  position,  in   our opinion, is plain and has to be borne in mind in considering the validity of the impugned Statute 2(4). Now, what does the said statute purport to do?  It  purports to  authorise  the Vice-Chancellor to amend  or  revise  the constitution wherever it is necessary.  It would be  noticed that this power is inconsistent with s. 30(d) of the Act. it is  a power which can be exercised under s. 30(e), but  that would have relation only to collegiate institutions  started by  the  University  itself.  It can have  no  relevance  to affiliated colleges.  If Statute 2(4) had merely  authorised the  Vice-Chancellor  to lay down conditions as to  how  the Governing  Bodies  of  the  affiliated  colleges  should  be constituted,  it  would  have  been  another  matter.    The University  can  effectively  bring about a  change  in  the composition  of the Governing Bodies of affiliated  colleges if it is thought necessary and desirable to do so under  its relevant  powers, but that must inevitably take the form  of prescribing general conditions in that behalf and leaving it to   the  affiliated  colleges  to  comply  with  the   said conditions.   Non-compliance  with the said  conditions  may entail  the liability to be disaffiliated; but that is  very different  from giving the power to the  Vice-Chancellor  of the  University  to  make  the  necessary  changes  in   the Governing  Bodies of the affiliated colleges itself.  It  is plain, as we have just seen, that this power is inconsistent with s. 30(d) of the Act and as such, is invalid. 888 How  this  power  has been worked out is  evident  from  the impugned  order itself.  This order purports to  direct  the reconstitution of the Governing Body of the Rajendri College with  immediate  effect in order to bring it  in  conformity with the provisions of the new Statutes.  Then, it virtually purports  to nominate some members of the  Governing,  Body. It provides that two staff representatives would continue on the  Governing  Body  as at present.   Then,  it  adds  five persons  to the said Governing Body.  Then, it  purports  to make a change in regard to the three seats reserved for  the Founders,  Donors,  Benefactors or Sponsors,  and  nominates three persons in that behalf.  It also directs that the  co- opted member Mr. Bishwanath Prasad Mishra will also continue till  the  fresh co-option is held; then  it  nominates  Mr. Ganga  Prasad Sinha, Advocate, Chapra, as the  Secretary  of the  Governing  Body of the College with  immediate  effect. Thus,  it  is plain that the power conferred  on  the  Vice- Chancellor by statute 2(4) has been exercised by him by  not only directing how the Governing Body should be  constituted on  principle,  but by nominating different persons  on  the Governing Body.  The basis on which a Governing Body  should be  constituted  is very different from  nominating  several persons on the said Governing Body.  It is the latter course which  has been adopted by the Vice-Chancellor and which  is inconsistent with s. 30(d) of the Act.  At this stage, it is



necessary  to  add  that the course  adopted  by  the  Vice- Chancellor  in  the present case is also  inconsistent  with Statute 2(4) itself.  The said Statute merely authorises the Vice-Chancellor  to amend or revise the constitution of  the Governing  Bodies of admitted colleges  whenever  necessary, and  as  we have already held, even the conferment  of  this power  is  ultra  vires the Statute.   But  what  the  Vice- Chancellor  has done has gone beyond even Statute  2(4);  he has  not  only amended -or revised the constitution  of  the Governing  Body, but has also nominated certain  persons  on it.  Thus, this action of the Vice-Chancellor  suffers  from the  double  infirmity  that it is  inconsistent  even  with Statute  2(4)  and is purported to have  been  issued  under Statute  2(4) which itself is invalid.   Unfortunately,  the High  Court appears to have failed to take into account  the basic  difference between the two categories  of  collegiate institutions,  and  the powers conferred on  the  University severally  in respect of them.  The view taken by  the  High Court   about  the  validity  of  Statute  2(4)   completely obliterates   the  difference  between  the  two  kinds   of collegiate   institutions   and   treats   all    collegiate institutions,  whether  instituted  by  the  University,  or affiliated to it, as falling completely under the management of the University -itself.  We accordingly hold that Statute 2(4) is invalid, and the impugned order passed under it  is, therefore, invalid and inoperative. 889 Then,  as to statute 3(1), the Syndicate may have the  power to cancel its grant-in-aid to the callege concerned, but  in so  far  as  3(l)(a)  seems  to  contemplate  that  if   the affiliated college refuses to submit to the order passed  by the Syndicate dissolving and ordering reconstitution of  its Governing Body, the penalty of the cancellation of grant-in- aid  may follow, it must be held that that part  of  Statute 3(l)  is  invalid.  It would be open to  the  University  to direct  that  the composition of the Governing  Body  should conform to conditions which may be changed by the University under its relevant powers and if the said conditions are not duly  complied  with  by  the  affiliated  college  or   its Governing  Body,  suitable  and permissible  action  may  be taken; but in so far as Statute 3 (1) proceeds on the  basis that  the Syndicate can itself dissolve the  Governing  Body and  order  its  reconstitution, it suffers  from  the  same infirmity as Statute 2(4).  That is why we hold that Statute 3(l)  in  so  far  as it gives power  to  the  Syndicate  to dissolve and reconstitute the Governing Body and enables  it to  cancel its grant-in-aid to an affiliated  college  under 3(l)(a)  for  the reason that the direction  issued  by  the Syndicate  in  that behalf has not been  complied  with,  is invalid. The learned Attorney-General has relied on the fact that the Vice-Chancellor  was compelled to pass the  impugned  order, because the affairs of the Rajendra College were  mismanaged and  a very grave situation arose as a result of  which  the authorities were faced with a serious law and order problem. In  that  connection,  he  invited  our  attention  to   the statements made in the impugned order in regard to the back- ground  of circumstances which compelled the issue  of  that order.   These  statements were, however,  disputed  by  the appellant in his writ petition.  The High Court has not con- sidered  the question as to whether the statements  made  in the  impugned order are proved to be true and we propose  to express no opinion ’on that aspect of the matter  ourselves. We are, however, prepared to assume that the Vice-Chancellor felt compelled to issue the order and that be acted bonafide



in  the interests of the students studying in  the  Rajendra College.   It  is  quite possible that  the  affairs  of  an affiliated  college  may be mismanaged and a  situation  may arise where either the University or the Vice-Chancellor may feel  justified  in  taking  drastic  action  to  save   the situation,  because, after:all, in dealing with the  problem of   efficient  management  of  affiliated   colleges,   the consideration  of  paramount importance must always  be  the interests  of the students studying in such  ,colleges;  and so,  theoretically,  there  can  be  no  objection  to   the University  being empowered to take suitable and  reasonable action  to  meet emergencies arising from  mismanagement  of affiliated colleges which expose the students to the grave 890 risk of interruption in their smooth academic work.  But the question  which we have to decide in the present  appeal  is not whether the University or the Vice-Chancellor should not have such power; the question is whether such a power can be claimed by the Statute under the provisions of the Act,  and that  question,  in our opinion, admits of only  one  answer under  the  Act  as  it now  stands.   The  Legislature  may consider  whether any suitable amendment should be  made  in that behalf.  That. however, is irrelevant to the point with which we are concerned. There  is  another consideration which we  may  incidentally mention  in  this connection.  The autonomous  bodies  which institute colleges and help the progress of higher education in this country, are generally run by disinterested persons, and  it  is of some importance that the  autonomy  of’  such bodies should not be unduly impaired.  When colleges run  by such autonomous bodies seek affiliation to a University, the University  undoubtedly  has a right  to  impose  reasonable conditions  for  affiliation and normally,  the  supervision exercised   by   the  University  over   the   affairs   and administration  ’of  its  affiliated  colleges   effectively serves  the  purpose  of’ requiring  the  said  colleges  to conform to the pattern of management and education in  force in  the  Government colleges or colleges instituted  by  the University.    In  resolving  a  possible  dispute   between affiliated  colleges and the University, attempt  should  be made  to respect the autonomy of the colleges and  reconcile the  same  with the supervisory powers  of’  the  University which  are  intended  to  be  exercised  in  order  to  make functioning   of  the  affiliated  colleges  efficient   and progressive.    Both  the  University  and  the   affiliated colleges  seek  to serve the cause of higher  education  and there  should  really  be  no  serious  dispute  as  to  the principles  on  which  their  mutual  relations  should   be regulated.   Unfortunately, in, the present case, the  Vice- Chancellor appears to have acted with some haste and he  has exercised  powers  Linder Statutes,  which  were  themselves hastily  framed and which are plainly inconsistent with  the provisions of the parent Act. There  is  one more point to which we must refer  before  we part  with this appeal.  The validity of the  Statutes  was. challenged  by the appellant on the additional  ground  that when  they were made by the Vice-Chancellor, the power  con- ferred on him by s. 35 of Act 11 of 1962 had come to an end. The said section empowered the Vice-Chancellor to  exercise, the powers ’of the appropriate Bodies of the University  for a period not exceeding nine months, or until the  respective Bodies were reconstituted.  The appellant’s case before  the High Court was that the Senate had been reconstituted in the first  week of November, 1962 and in fact. notices had  been issued to call for a meeting of the said Senate on the



891 30th  November.  That being so, with the  reconstitution  of the Senate the statutory power of the Vice-Chancellor  under s.  35  came  to an end, and so,  the  Statutes  which  were promulgated  on the 18th November, 1962 were  invalid.   The High Court has rejected this contention mainly on the ground that  the Senate was not duly constituted even on  the  30th November, 1962 "inasmuch as the application of Mr. Baleshwar Prasad Choudhary filed, in the High Court was still  pending and  the question had still to be decided as to  whether  he was  entitled to be a member of the Senate as being a  donor of  the Dalsingsarai College".  The High Court thought  that since an order of stay had been passed by it, there could be no  meeting of the Senate even on the 30th  November,  1962, and so, after address of the Chancellor, the meeting bad  to be adjourned.  It appears that the stay order passed by  the High  Court was in relation to the direction issued  by  the Chancellor  prohibiting  Baleshwar  Prasad  Choudhary   from acting  as a member of the Senate and that strictly may  not have  a material bearing on the question as to  whether  the Senate had been properly constituted before the 18th  Novem- ber,  1962  or not.  The appellant’s case is  that  since  a meeting  of  the  new Senate bad been called  for  the  30th November,  by  a  notice issued in that behalf  on  the  8th November,  it  postulates  that the  Senate  had  been  duly constituted  before the 8th of November and for  the  proper reconstitution  of the Senate, it was not necessary that  it should actually hold its first meeting.  On the ’other hand, the  learned  Attorney-General contends  that  the  material adduced  on  the  record  of  these  proceedings  is  wholly insufficient to justify the finding that the Senate had been duly  constituted  before the 18th November, 1962.   We  are satisfied that the contention raised by the Attorney-General is sound-.  On the available material, we see no evidence on which it could be held that a Senate had been  reconstituted on any particular date, and so, we do not propose to  record any  conclusion on this part of the appellant’s  case.   All that  we would like to add is that the finding of  the  High Court  on this point should not be taken to be binding,  and if in future this question arises, it may have to be decided on the merits afresh. The  result is, the appeal is allowed, the order  passed  by the High Court is set aside, and the writ petition filed  by the  appellant  is allowed.  An order  will  accordingly  be issued restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned  order  (Annexure A), because the said  order,  and Statute 2(4) and a part of Statute 3(l) on which it is based are  invalid  and  inoperative.   The  appellant  would   be entitled to his costs from respondent No. 1 throughout. Appeal allowed. 892