Supreme Court of India
BHARAT RATNA INDIRA GANDHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & OTHERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
- Decided
- 28 March 2011
- Judges listed
- MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2011] 3 S.C.R. 1087 · 2011 INSC 228
- Also cited as
- (2011) 4 SCC 565
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Delay condoned.
p. 1088
Leave granted. G Heard loamed counsel for the parties.
p. 1088
These Appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 03rd December, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.2216 of 2006.
p. 1088
At the very outset we may note that in fact there was no A petition before the High Court on which the impugned order was Pi:lssed. The High Court took suo motu action on the basis of · some information which has not been disclosed in the ·impugned order. The cause title in the impugned judgment re~s: B "Cc· •rt its own motion vs, State of Maharashtra through
p. 1089
on its Secretary, Education Department.·
p. 1089
None of the ·colleges in respect of wh.ich the impugned order was passed were made respondents, nor was notice C · issued to ttiem, nor were they tieard by the High Court. .
p. 1089
To say the least, .this was a strange procedure adopted by the High Court. · ...
p. 1089
In our opinion, such suo motu orders; without even a D petition: on which ttiey are passed, are ordinarily not justified · nor sustainable. Ordinarily, there must be a petition on which the Court can pass an order. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in taking suo motu action in this case. Judges must · E exercise restraint in such matters.
p. 1089
Moreover, we have perused the impugned order and we are of the opinion that the directions contained in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment were wholly unwarranted as they amount to judicial legislation. F
p. 1089
It appears that many private unaided Degree Colleges in Maharashtra did not have permanent Principals, and this is what motivated the High Court to pass the impugned order.
p. 1089
By the impugned order. the High Court has directed that G if the colleges fall to fill in the post of Principal by 31st May, 2009, the University will issue orders in the first week of June, 2009 prohibiting admissions in the Colleges conce~ned.
p. 1089
In our opinion, no such direction could have been validly H ·A given by the High ;$~. If there is no permanent Principal, obviously the Acting Principal shall officiate as Principal, but; that does noti;mean that in the absence of the permanent Principal, admissions to the college should be prohibited. There
pp. 1089–1090
is no statutory rule that in the absence of a permanent Principal admissions in the Colleges cannot be made. Thus, the High Court has indulged in judicial legislation, which is not ordinarily permissible to the Cdurts vide Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Another vs. Chander Hass & Another (2008) 1 SCC 683.
p. 1090
Ahso, none of these Colleges were made parties before the High Court, and hence the aforesaid direction is violative of the principles of natural justice.
p. 1090, margin E
Ac:cordingly, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. No costs.
p. 1090, margin E
However, we direct that the process for filling up the posts of Principal may continue in accordance with law, and should
p. 1090, margin D
be done expeditiously. E N.J. Appeals allow~d.
p. 1090, margin D