Remanded

State of Meghalaya and Anr. v. Cmj Foundation and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Nov 2019WA/266/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal challenged the Meghalaya High Court judgment quashing a university dissolution order. Finding no depiction of the respondents' case, the Gauhati High Court set aside the lower judgment for a fresh adjudication rather than deciding the merits of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment dated 16.07.2015 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Single Judge of the High Court of Meghalaya for a fresh adjudication.

State of Meghalaya and Anr. Vs Cmj Foundation and 3… — Education and Admissions | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010210012018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

WA NO.266/2018

¶5

Corresponding to

¶6

WA No.14/2017 (High Court of Meghalaya)

¶7

Arising out of WP(C)No.177/2014(High Court of Meghalaya)

¶8

1:STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR

¶9

THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA, SHILLONG, 793001

¶10

2: THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

¶11

SHILLONG - 79300

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

1:CMJ FOUNDATION AND 3 ORS

¶14

THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES INDU RANI JHA, REGD. OFFICE - MODRINA MANSION, LAITUMKHRAH, SHILLONG - 793003 (MEGHALAYA)

¶15

2:CMJ UNIVERSITY

¶16

THROUGH ITS DEPUTY REGISTRAR PREM LAL RAI MODRINA MANSION LAITUMKHRAH

¶17

SHILLONG - 793003 (MEGHALAYA)

¶18

3:MRS INDU RANI JHA CMJ FOUNDATION MODRINA MANSION LAITUMKHRAH SHILLONG - 793003 (MEGHALAYA)

¶19

Page No.# 2/5

¶20

4:VISITOR

¶21

THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA GOVERNOR'S SECRETARIAT RAJ BHAWAN SHILLONG - 79300

¶22

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P NONGBRI

¶23

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S P SHARMA

¶24

BEFORE

¶25

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶26

JUDGMENT & ORDER

¶27

( AM Bujor Barua, J.)

¶28

05.11.2019

¶29

Heard Mr. N Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J Roy, Mr. P Nongbri and Mr. WB Gayang. Also heard Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondent, CMJ University.

¶30

A show-cause notice dated 12.11.2013 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Education, addressed to the Vice Chancellor/Registrar CMJ University Shillong and a subsequent show-cause notice dated 24.01.2014 of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya in the Education Department also addressed to the ViceChancellor/Registrar CMJ University Shillong and the resultant dissolution order dated 31.03.2014 of the Government of Meghalaya Department of Education whereby the respondent CMJ University stood dissolved in exercise of power under Section 42(2) of the CMJ University Act of 2009 were assailed in the writ petition WP(C)No.177/2014 before the High Court of Meghalaya. By the judgment dated 16.07.2015 of the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition, the two show cause notices dated 12.11.2013 and 24.01.2014 as well as the order of dissolution dated 31.03.2014 were quashed and set aside. The present intra-court appeal had been preferred against the said judgment dated 16.07.2015.

¶31

Page No.# 3/5

¶32

We take note of that although the judgment of the learned Single Judge is from the High Court of Meghalaya but because of certain intervening circumstances, the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court resulting in SLP(C) No.21890/2017 wherein by the order dated 13.08.2018, the intracourt appeal proceedings stood transferred to the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati.

¶33

We have also taken note of that there is a requirement in the order of the Supreme Court that the intra-court appeal be given its final consideration at its earliest.

¶34

Mr. N Dutta, learned senior counsel for the appellant, State of Meghalaya and Others had raised the contention that from paragraph 18 up to paragraph 28 of the judgment dated 16.07.2015, the learned Single Judge had recorded the case presented by the writ petitioner CMJ University. Thereafter, there is no depiction of the case that was projected by the respondents in the writ petition i.e., the Government of Meghalaya and Others.

¶35

Without doing so, in paragraph 29, the learned Single Judge had provided as under:

¶36

“29. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered view that there was noncompliance with or breach of the fundamental procedural requirements as provided under Section 48 of the said Act of 2009 as well as principles of natural justice and the concept of the obligations of the administrative authorities to act fairly in issuing the show cause notices dated 12.11.2013 and 24.01.2014 and passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2014 which would lead to many facets injustices. Thus, the impugned order dated 31.03.2014 and the show cause notices dated 11.12.2013 and 24.01.2014 are hereby quashed and set aside.”

¶37

From paragraph 29, it is apparent that after depicting the case presented by the petitioner, CMJ University, the learned Single Judge took the view that for the foregoing discussions i.e. the contents up to paragraph 28, the Court was of the considered view that there was non-compliance with or breach of the fundamental procedural requirements as provided under Section 48 of the CMJ University Act of 2009 as well as that of the principles of natural justice and also the concept of the obligation of the administrative authorities to act fairly in issuing the show cause notices and the order

¶38

Page No.# 4/5

¶39

of dissolution. Upon going through the judgment dated 16.07.2015 we are of the prima facie view that in fact there was no depiction of the case as projected by the respondents in the writ petition.

¶40

When the learned Single Judge provided that ‘for the foregoing discussions’ we understood that the discussion would include the case projected by one party and the contrary case projected by the other party and upon giving a consideration to both the projections, a decision and adjudication be arrived thereon. As already pointed out that the case projected by the respondents in the writ petition i.e., the authorities under the State of Meghalaya were neither stated nor projected and hence it cannot be a case where because of foregoing discussions the Court arrived at a particular conclusion. In the aforesaid circumstances, both the learned senior counsel for the parties arrived at an agreement that the judgment dated 16.07.2015 of the learned Single Judge be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for a fresh adjudication of the dispute.

¶41

We, accordingly, agree to the proposition put forth by both the learned senior counsel and, accordingly, set aside the judgment dated 16.07.2015 in WP(C)No.177/2014. We further provide that we have not made any observation on any of the claims or issues that have been raised by the parties and neither we have adjudicated upon any of such claims or issues. On the matter being remanded back, the parties would be at liberty to raise any issue that they may desire to raise. We have also taken note of that the Supreme Court in its order dated 13.08.2018 in SLP(C)No.21890/2017 had provided that the High Court at Guwahati was requested to take up the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of the order of the Supreme Court. It was further provided that till then the stay order dated 04.09.2017 granted by the Supreme Court would continue.

¶42

As we have given a final consideration to the appeal, but at the same time without deciding the rights of the parties, the matter stood remanded back to the learned Single Judge for a fresh adjudication, we are of the view that interest of justice would require that the stay order dated 04.09.2017 of the Supreme Court should continue till the matter is in sesin of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of the Meghalaya. Upon the matter being taken up by the learned Single Judge, a fresh consideration may be given on the interim arrangement that would be deemed appropriate during the pendency of the proceeding before the learned Single Judge and all such contentions that the rival parties desire to raise may be raised at that stage.

¶43

Page No.# 5/5

¶44

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The records that had been transmitted to this Court now stands transmitted forthwith back to the High Court of Meghalaya.

¶45

JUDGE JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

State of Meghalaya and Anr. v. Cmj Foundation and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Meghalaya and Anr. v. Cmj Foundation and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sauradeep Dey Vs the Union of India

M/S Jayshree Entrade Private Limited Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

M/S Jayshree Entrade Private Limited Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Subir Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 14 Ors.

Kishore Kumar Bhattacharjee and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Upendra Nath Misra Vs Prof. Ashutosh Sharma