Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5920  OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11883 of 2012)

People’s University  … Appellant

versus

State of Madhya Pradesh and another        … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the learned  

Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby he allowed the review  

petition filed by respondent No.1, recalled order dated 6.1.2012 passed in Writ  

1

Page 2

Petition No.22021/2011 and issued direction for listing of the same before the  

Division Bench.

3. The appellant was established under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Niji  

Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Avam Sanchalan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (for short, ‘the  

Act’) as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Avam  

Sanchalan) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2011.  In terms of Section 9(2) of the Act,  

the appellant is deemed to have been incorporated with effect from 4.5.2011 i.e.  

the date on which the Amendment Act was published in the official gazette.

4. After  its  establishment  and incorporation,  the appellant  framed the First  

Statutes under Section 26 and the First Ordinances under Section 28 of the Act  

and submitted the same to the Madhya Pradesh Private University Regulatory  

Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’), which was established by the State  

Government  under  Section  36(1)  of  the  Act  for  the  purpose  of  providing  a  

regulatory mechanism at the State level and for working as an interface between  

the  State  Government  and  the  central  regulatory  bodies  for  the  purpose  of  

ensuring  appropriate  standards  of  teaching,  examination,  research,  extension  

programme, protection of interest of students and reasonable service conditions of  

the  employees.   The  First  Ordinances  of  the  appellant  were  approved  by the  

Commission  and  were  forwarded  to  the  State  Government  vide  letter  dated  

2

Page 3

23.9.2011 for publication in the official gazette. The First Statutes framed by the  

appellant were provisionally approved by the Commission and sent to the State  

Government vide letter dated 24.10.2011 with a request that the same may be got  

examined from the Law Department and made available to the Commission with  

the amendment, if any. In that letter it was also mentioned that if no amendment  

was proposed by the State Government then the First Statutes be published in the  

official  gazette as per the requirement of Section 35 of the Act.   The English  

translation of that letter, which has been filed with the special leave petition as  

Annexure P-6, is reproduced below:

“MADHYA PRADESH PRIVATE UNIVERSITY

REGULATORY COMMISSION

Bhopal (M.P.)

No.   /M.P.P.U.R.Commission, Bhopal Date:24/10/2011

To

The Chief Secretary

State of M.P.

Higher Education Department

Ministry, Bhopal.

Sub: Publication of First Statutes presented by the Peoples     University in the Gazette.

 In compliance of the provisions of Para 26(2) of M.P. Private  University (Establishment & Control) Act, 2007, the First Statutes  

3

Page 4

recommended by the  Administrative  Body of  Peoples  University  and  provisionally  recommended  by  the  Commission  and  its  two  attested copies are hereby attached and sent.

 In  this  regard  it  is  kindly  requested  that  there  is  no  legal  advisor available in the Commission.  Therefore, it would be proper  to request  from the legal department to carry out examination of  these statutes and make available to the Commission through the  State  Government  along  with  the  amendment  which  has  been  presented,  so  that  these  amendments  may  be  presented  in  the  meeting of the commission and after receiving the recommendation  of the commission these shall be sent for publication in the Gazette.  If  no  amendment/suggestion  is  recommended  by  the  legal  department,  then kindly  oblige  to  get  it  published in  the gazette  under  Section 35 of  the Act  considering it  recommended by the  Commission in final form.

(Recommended by the Chairman)

Encl: Statutes in two copies

Sd/-illegible

   (Dr. P.K. Khare)  

Secretary

Endorsement No.556/M.P.P.U.R.Commission, Bhopal

Copy to: Dated 24/10/2011

Registrar Peoples University Bhanpur, Peoples Campus, Bhopal for  necessary information.

         Sd/-illegible

   (Dr. P.K. Khare)  

Secretary”

(Note:  The  word  ‘recommendation/recommended’  used  in  letters  

dated  23.9.2011  and  24.10.2011  does  not  represent  the  correct  

4

Page 5

translation  of  the  original  version  in  Hindi  in  which  the  word  

‘anumodan’ has been used and the English translation of that word  

is ‘approval’.  Likewise, the word ‘Para’ used before figure 26(2) is  

not correct.  The correct word should have been ‘Section’)

5. After 1½ months, the Registrar of the appellant sent letter dated 7.12.2011  

to the Principal  Secretary,  Government  of  Madhya Pradesh,  Higher Education  

Department for publication of the First Statutes and the First Ordinances.  After  

another 17 days, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.22021/2011 and prayed for  

issue of a mandamus to respondent No.1 to get the First Statutes and the First  

Ordinances published in the official gazette. (The date mentioned in the copy of  

the  writ  petition  annexed  with  the  special  leave  petition  as  Annexure  P-8  is  

24.12.2011.)  

6. The  learned  Single  Judge  before  whom the  writ  petition  was  listed  on  

29.12.2011  ordered  notice  to  the  respondents  for  4.1.2012.  In  the  written  

statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2 on 2.1.2012, reference was made to  

Sections 7, 8, 9, 26, 28 and 35 of the Act and it was averred that the appellant had  

made  admissions  in  complete  violation  of  the  undertaking  given  in  terms  of  

Section  7  (iv)  of  the  Act  despite  the  fact  that  it  was  repeatedly  warned vide  

communications dated 26.3.2011, 30.7.2011, 8.9.2011, 9.11.2011 and 30.11.2011  

not to do so. However, the Commission admitted that it had sent letters dated  

5

Page 6

23.9.2011 and 24.10.2011 to the State Government in the matter of publication of  

the First Ordinances and the First Statutes.

7. The writ petition was listed for admission hearing on 6.1.2012, i.e., two  

days after the date specified in the notice.  On that day, the counsel appearing for  

respondent No.1 sought time to seek instructions.  The learned Single Judge did  

not accept his request and finally disposed of the writ petition by recording the  

following order:  

“Heard on admission.  

This  Court  vide  order  dated  29.12.2011  directed  issuance  of  Hamdast notices to the respondents, returnable within a week and  further  directed  listing  of  this  petition  for  final  disposal  on  04.01.2012. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed memo of  acknowledgement  indicating  that  the  Hamdast  notices  were  served on the respondents well within time. i.e.  on 30.12.2011.  The respondent No. 2 has already filed a return.

By  this  petition  the  petitioner  has  made  a  prayer  to  direct  respondent no. 1 to get the First Statute and First Ordinance of the  petitioner  University,  duly  approved  by  the  respondent  No.  2  published in the official Gazette within 7 days.  It  is contended  that  as  per  the  provisions  of  Madhya  Pradesh  Niji  Vishwa  Vidyalaya (Sthapana Avam. Sanchalan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (herein  after referred to as ‘Act’), the powers are given to the respondent  No.  2  to  make  First  Statute  and  First  Ordinance,  which  are  required to be approved by the respondent No. 2 and the same  will come into force only after publication in the official Gazette  of Madhya Pradesh as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Act.  It is contended that though the First Statute and First Ordinance  are prepared, duly approved by the respondent No. 2 but the same  are not published in the Gazette on account of which the same are  not coming into force.

6

Page 7

The respondent No.2 by filing the return has contended that the  said exercise is completed and the matter has been placed before  the respondent No.l for publication of the First Statute and First  Ordinance. However, the respondent No.l has not published the  same in the official Gazette on account of which the same are not  yet in force.

Learned  Deputy  Advocate  General  has  sought  time  to  seek  instructions.

It  is  seen  that  the  notices  were  issued  in  this  petition  on  29.11.2011 and specifically it was directed that the instructions be  obtained and matter be listed on 04.01.2012. No reply or return is  filed by the respondent No.l opposing the petition.

There is no prescription of any provision under this Act that the  State Government may take any objection with respect to making  of any First Statute or First Ordinance. Since the State has no role  to play in such a matter, it is directed that the First Statute and  First Ordnance so approved by the respondent No. 2 be published  in the official Gazette within 10 days from the date of receipt of  certified copy of this order passed today.”

8. In the meanwhile, the First Statutes and the First Ordinances framed by the  

appellant were examined by the State Government and a decision was taken on  

16.12.2011 at the level of the Principal Secretary, Medical Department that the  

Commission be asked to inform the appellant that admission in Medical, Dental  

and other courses relating to Health Sciences should be made as per the directions  

issued by the Medical Education Department of the State Government, Medical  

Council of India /  Dental Council of India (MCI / DCI) and other regulatory  

bodies and the lists of admitted students be made available to those bodies, the  

Director, Medical Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Committee  

7

Page 8

constituted  under  M.P.  Niji  Vyavasayik  Shikshan  Sansthan  (Pravesh  Ka  

Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan)  Adhiniyam, 2007.   This  decision  was  

approved by the concerned Minister and the Chief Minister in the third week of  

January, 2012.  (These facts are borne out from the files produced by Shri B.S.  

Banthia, learned counsel representing the State of M.P.)  Thereafter, the Secretary  

of the Commission sent two letters dated 28.1.2012 to the Vice Chancellor of the  

appellant and conveyed the instructions received from the State Government.  By  

two  other  letters  dated  6.2.2012,  the  Commission  approved  the  amendments  

suggested by the State Government in Para 3(b) of Statute No.18 that admission  

in Medical, Dental and other courses relating to Health Sciences shall be made  

according to the directions issued by the Medical Education Department of the  

State  Government  and  the  regulatory  bodies,  like,  MCI/DCI  and  the  lists  of  

admitted students be forwarded to the concerned authorities.

9. On  receipt  of  the  aforesaid  communications,  the  appellant  filed  MCC  

No.180/2012  in  Writ  Petition  No.22021/2011  and  prayed  that  a  direction  be  

issued to the respondents to implement order dated 6.1.2012. The learned Single  

Judge issued notice on 8.2.2012 and fixed the case for 17.2.2012.  The appellant  

also filed Writ Petition No. 2386/2012 for quashing the directions contained in  

letters dated 6.2.2012. The High Court entertained the writ petition on 10.2.2012,  

8

Page 9

issued  notice  to  the  respondents  and  stayed  the  operation  of  communications  

dated 6.2.2012.  

10. At that stage, respondent No.1 filed a petition  for review of order dated  

6.1.2012 on the following grounds:

i) That the approval granted by the Commission to the First Statutes  

and the First Ordinances framed by the appellant was provisional and  

the  High  Court  committed  an  error  by  issuing  a  mandamus  for  

publication thereof within 10 days.

ii) That the High Court committed an error by assuming that the State  

Government does not have any role in the matter of framing of the  

First Statutes and the First Ordinances ignoring that under Section  

36(11)  of  the  Act  the  State  Government  has  the  power  to  issue  

instructions  to  the  Commission  on  policy  matters  and  such  

instructions are binding on the Commission.

11. The learned Single Judge took cognizance of the provisions contained in  

Section 36 of the Act and the documents filed with Writ Petition No.2386/2012  

and proceeded to observe:

“6. Now  it  is  to  be  seen  whether  the  Regulatory  Commission has any power to ask for any guidance from the  

9

Page 10

State  Government  or  to  act  in  any  manner  so  as  to  seek  approval from the State Government before granting approval  of  the  first  Statutes  or  first  Ordinances.   Section  36  in  Chapter-IV  of  the  Act  deals  with  the  constitution  of  the  Regulatory Commission and the opening sentence of the said  Section in sub-section (1) is that the Regulatory Commission  shall be established by the State Government for the purpose  of providing a regulatory mechanism at the State level and for  working as an interface between the State Government and  the  central  regulatory  bodies  for  the  purpose  of  ensuring  appropriate  standards  of  teaching,  examination,  research,  extension programme, protection of interest  of  the students  and  reasonable  service  conditions  of  the  employees.   The  Regulatory  Commission  is  made  to  function  under  the  general control of the Visitor, i.e. the Governor of the State.  Now what  is  the meaning of  word ‘interface’  and whether  could it be said that the Regulatory Commission is nothing  but an agent of the State Government to act in between the  State Government and the central regulatory bodies for the  aforesaid  purpose.   The  literary  meaning  of  ‘interface’  as  given in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, is a device  or connection or program that joins one device or system to  another.  The other more appropriate meaning is that the point  where  subjects,  systems  etc.  meet  and  affect  each  other.  Thus, the Regulatory Commission set up under the Act has to  be treated as a bridge in between the State Government and  the other central regulatory bodies for the purpose of ensuring  appropriate procedure of teaching etc. as given in sub-section  (1) of Section 36 of the Act.  Naturally if such interface is  required to get something examined, it has every right to refer  the matter to the higher authorities of the State.

7. In the case in hand though nothing has been placed on  record in the review petition but in response to the connected  writ  petition,  documents  have  been  filed  and  it  has  been  pointed out that the Regulatory Commission was of the view  that  the  first  Statutes  made  by  the  respondent  No.1  was  required  to  be  referred  to  the  Law  Department  of  the  Government  of  Madhya  Pradesh  for  seeking  approval  whether such first Statutes were in conformity with different  

1

Page 11

laws  made  in  respect  of  establishing  a  higher  teaching  institutions or not.  The matter was thereafter returned by the  Law Department  saying  that  it  was  required  to  give  legal  opinion only on the legal issues and not in such a case where  the  statutes  were  required  to  be  made.   Since  the medical  education is also one of the part of studies and the department  of the private university, the matter was thereafter referred to  the medical education department of Government of Madhya  Pradesh and it was decided that certain changes were required  to be made with respect to the admission of the students in  the  private  university.   This  being  so,  after  the  matter  travelled up to the Chief Minister of the State, the subsequent  orders were passed, of course after the final disposal of the  writ petition filed by respondent No.1 on 06.01.2012.”

The  learned  Single  Judge  also  referred  to  Rule  2(7)(e)  of  the  High  Court  of  

Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the Rules’) and concluded that the writ  

petition filed by the appellant for issue of a mandamus to respondent No.1 to  

publish  the First  Statutes  and the First  Ordinances,  some provisions of  which  

relate to admission of the students, could be heard only by the Division Bench and  

not  by the Single  Judge and an error  apparent  on the face of  the record was  

committed  in  deciding  the  matter  on  6.1.2012.   The  learned  Single  Judge,  

accordingly, allowed the review petition and directed that the matter be placed  

before the Chief Justice for issue of necessary instruction for listing of the matter  

before the Division Bench.

12. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the appellant,  referred to  

Sections 26, 28, 35 and 36 of the Act and argued that once the First Statutes and  

1

Page 12

the First Ordinances were approved by the Commission, the State Government  

had no role in the matter and it was bound to publish the same in the official  

gazette  in  terms  of  Section  35.   Learned  senior  counsel  submitted  that  the  

direction given by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 6.1.2012 was legally  

correct and there was no occasion for him to recall that order at the instance of  

respondent No.1.  Dr. Dhawan argued that the learned Single Judge committed a  

jurisdictional error by entertaining and allowing the review petition by treating the  

same as a petition for re-hearing the matter. He submitted that the learned Single  

Judge could not have reviewed order dated 6.1.2012 by assuming that he had  

committed an error in appreciating the true scope of Section 36 of the Act. He  

further submitted that instead of complying with the direction contained in order  

dated 6.1.2012, respondent No.1 contemptuously issued directions in the matter of  

admissions of the students and suggested amendment in the First Statutes and, on  

this ground alone, the learned Single Judge should have declined to entertain the  

review petition.   Learned  senior  counsel  then  argued  that  even  though  some  

provisions of the First Statutes and the First Ordinances relate to admission of the  

students, the writ petition filed for issue of a mandamus to respondent No.1 to  

publish the same in the official gazette was not required to be placed before the  

Division Bench of the High Court and the learned Single Judge did not commit  

any error by entertaining and allowing the same.  Dr. Dhawan submitted that even  

1

Page 13

if the writ petition was required to be laid before the Division Bench of the High  

Court,  hearing thereof  by  the  learned Single  Judge  cannot  be  faulted  because  

counsel appearing for the respondents did not point out that as per Rule 2 (7)(e) of  

the Rules, the writ petition can be heard only by the Division Bench.

13. Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned senior counsel and Shri B.S. Banthia,  

learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  supported  the  

impugned order and argued that the learned Single Judge did not commit any  

error  by  reviewing  order  dated  6.1.2012  because  the  same  had  been  passed  

without giving reasonable opportunity to respondent No.1 to show why the First  

Statutes and the First  Ordinances framed by the appellant were not published.  

Shri  Prasad  referred  to  letter  dated  24.10.2011  sent  by  the  Secretary  of  the  

Commission to the Chief Secretary of the State to show that the Commission had  

provisionally approved the First Statutes and argued that the learned Single Judge  

committed serious error  by directing publication thereof  by assuming that  the  

Commission had granted unconditional approval and this, by itself, constituted a  

valid ground for review of order dated 6.1.2012.  Learned senior counsel further  

argued that under Section 36(11) of the Act, the State Government has the power  

to issue directions on policy matters, which are binding on the Commission and  

the former  did not  commit any illegality by requiring the latter  to inform the  

appellant that the admissions in medical courses are required to be made strictly  

1

Page 14

in consonance with guidelines issued by the Medical Education Department of the  

State, MCI/DCI and other regulatory bodies and to submit the lists of admitted  

students  to  the  concerned  authorities  and  bodies.  Shri  Ravi  Shankar  Prasad  

emphasized that such directions were sine qua non for ensuring that standard of  

medical education is not compromised in any manner.  Shri Banthia referred to  

the averments contained in the writ petition to show that even though the prayer  

made by the appellant was for issue of a mandamus to respondent No.1 to publish  

the First Statutes and the First Ordinances, substance of the relief claimed by the  

appellant related to the policy of admission and admission of the students and  

argued that in view of Rule 2(7)(e) of the Rules, the Registry of the High Court  

should not have listed the matter before the Singhe Bench and the learned Single  

Judge should not have decided the writ petition.  

14. Learned counsel  for the Commission also supported the impugned order  

and argued that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by recalling  

order dated 6.1.2012 because the First Statutes framed by the appellant had not  

been finally approved by the Commission and, in the absence of such an approval,  

a mandamus could not have been issued for publication thereof in the official  

gazette.  Learned counsel submitted that the appellant was, and is, not entitled to  

any relief  under Article 226 of  the Constitution of  India because it  had made  

1

Page 15

admissions in brazen violation of the undertaking given as per the requirement of  

Section 7(iv)(m) of the Act.

15. We have considered the  respective  arguments/submissions.  In  our  view,  

even though the learned Single Judge may not have been justified in recalling  

order dated 6.1.2012 merely because he, on a detailed analysis of Section 36 of  

the Act felt that the Commission acts as a bridge in between the State Government  

and the Central Regulatory bodies and the amendments suggested by the State  

Government in the First  Statutes were meant to achieve the objects set  out in  

Section 36(1),  the impugned order does not call for interference under Article  

136  of  the  Constitution  because  the  procedure  adopted  by the  learned Single  

Judge in deciding the writ petition was contrary to the basics of natural justice.  

The request made by the counsel appearing for respondent No.1 for grant of time  

to seek instructions ought not to have been rejected at the threshold. It is quite  

possible that the counsel representing the appellant may have pressed for early  

disposal of the writ petition but the prayer made therein was not such which could  

justify denial of opportunity to respondent No.1 to file an affidavit to controvert  

the averments contained in the writ petition and to show cause why a mandamus  

should not be issued for publication of the First Statutes and the First Ordinances.  

We have no doubt that if respondent No.1 had been given a few days’ time, an  

affidavit of the competent officer could have been filed to show that on receipt of  

1

Page 16

the letters sent by the Secretary of the Commission, the matter was examined by  

the Medical and Health Department as well as the Law Department and a decision  

was taken to suggest amendment in the First Ordinances and the First Statutes so  

that admissions in Medical, Dental and other courses relating to health sciences  

are made in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Medical  Education  

Department of the State Government and the regulatory bodies like the MCI and  

the  DCI.   Respondent  No.1  could  have  also  pleaded  that  the  Commission’s  

approval of the First Statutes was not final and the matter was referred to the State  

Government to suggest  amendment,  if  any,  which could be considered by the  

Commission.  It seems to us that the learned Single Judge did not get time to go  

through  the  contents  of  letter  dated  24.10.2011  sent  by  the  Secretary  of  the  

Commission to the Chief Secretary of the State, else he would not have disposed  

of the writ petition and issued a mandamus for publication of the First Statutes of  

the appellant by erroneously assuming that the Commission had finally approved  

the First Statutes.  

16. We  also  agree  with  the  learned  counsel  for  respondent  No.1  that  the  

appellant’s writ  petition should have been heard by the Division Bench of the  

High  Court  and  the  learned  Single  Judge  committed  a  jurisdictional  error  by  

entertaining and allowing the same. In the writ petition filed by it, the appellant  

repeatedly emphasized the need for early publication of the First Statutes and the  

1

Page 17

First Ordinances and made a grievance that delay in that regard was affecting the  

admission  process  in  various  courses.  This  is  evident  from  the  contents  of  

paragraph Nos. 4, 5.2, 5.4 to 5.9, 5.11, 6.3, 6.5, 6.8, 6.10, 6.14 and 6.15 of Writ  

Petition No.22021/2011. The First  Statutes and the First  Ordinances,  of which  

publication  was  sought,  also  deal  with  the  policy  of  admission  including  the  

regulation  of  reservation  of  seats  for  different  categories  and  admission  of  

students and their enrolment. This was as per the requirement of Section 26(1)(i)  

and Section 28(1)(a) of the Act.  Therefore, in terms of Rule 2(7)(e) of the Rules  

the writ petition should have been listed before the Division Bench of the High  

Court. The error committed by the Registry of the High Court in listing the matter  

before the learned Single Judge was compounded by him by entertaining and  

allowing the same.  Therefore,  there was every justification for  recalling order  

dated 6.1.2012 so that the matter could be heard by the Division Bench.

17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Now, Writ Petition No.22021/2011 be  

listed before the Division Bench of the High Court and be heard along with Writ  

Petition No.2386/2012. We request the concerned Bench of the High Court to  

make an endeavour to dispose of both the writ petitions as early as possible but  

latest within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy  

of this order.  It is made clear that the parties shall be free to raise all legally  

permissible contentions and the High Court shall decide the writ petitions without  

1

Page 18

being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the  

impugned order.                                                                       

…...……..….………………….…J.                      [G.S. Singhvi]

New Delhi,                                 …………..….………………….…J.  August 21, 2012.                                            [Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya]

1