JUDGMENT S.S. Kulshrestha, J.
1. Heard and also perused the materials on record.
2. This petition has been brought for quashing the written report registered at case crime No. 312/05 under Sections 419 and 420 IPC at P.S. Naini, Allahabad. Simultaneously the liberty of the petitioners is desired to be protected by way of staying their arrest. Allegation lions have been attributed against Dr. Rajendra B. Lal, Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad Agricultural Institute - Deemed University (the University) and Prof. A.K.A. Lawrence who are herein petitioners that they have introduced certain technical courses in the University without having approval under All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE) or the relevant statutes and made fraudulent and dishonest inducement of students to take admission in those courses by making payment of exorbitant amount of fees. It is said that on account of disgruntled elements the entire trouble has been created in the University. Resultantly on 29 and 30 August, 2005 students of the University went on rampage. They caused much damage to the University properties, The police was al:- 'ailed to preserve tranquility in the University campus.- However, the University administration had also to take unpleasant decision to close the University sine die. It is also said that the vague allegations have been attributed against the petitioners and the University to create disturbances in the University and to affect education. It is further contended that the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) vide the notification dated 15.3.2000 declared "Allahabad Agricultural instituted as Deemed University" under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (U.G.C. Act, 1956). The team of National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), which is an organization of the U.G.C. also inspected the University in the month of January 2005 and accredited the courses run by the University as B", i.e. 80-85%: They have also examined the accounts of the University so as to ascertain the fees receipts from the students and have recorded their satisfaction. It is further contended that the University does not come within the purview of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE Act) so far as the approval of running of the technical courses is concerned as it has specifically been excluded in view of the arrangements made under Section 10(k) of AICTE Act.
3. This petition is resisted on behalf of the complainant with the contentions that the petitioners themselves are responsible for creating such an unruly atmosphere in the University by defrauding the students and the other authorities. By deception they have given admission to large number of students knowing that the courses are not recognized and by their act and omission they have played with the carrier of students. They have introduced technical courses without having the approval from the appropriate authority. Not only this they are also running Distance Education Study Centers contrary to the guidelines issued by the U.G.C. time and again. They have as many as 991 Distance Education Study Centers in and outside the State, including Nepal. In that way they have amassed huge wealth, which would come to approximately Rs. 2,40,00,00.00/- (Rs. Two Arabs forty Crores). Further it has also said that the U.G.C. created the status of the Deemed University only for 14 departments but now they have increased the number of courses manifold and now there are 108 courses being run by the University without ensuring infrastructure and teaching facilities. They have not got the approval for the Mistance Education Studies Centers from the Distance Education Council or from the U.G.C. It has also been emphasized that the petitioners have violated all norms settled for introducing different courses in the University so is also in the matter of setting Distance Education Studies Centers. It is also said that they have charged exorbitant fees.
4. The sum and substance of the grievance of the complainant as well as the objections put forward was that the University did not apply and secure the approval for the technical courses before their commencement as envisaged under AICTE Act and the statutory guidelines issued by the U.G.C. were violated with impunity. It is, however, contended by the learned counsel for the University that the University as defined under Section 2(f) of the U.G.C. Act, 1956 will not fall within the definition of "technical education" as contained in Section 2(h) of AICTE Act and therefore it is also out of the purview of Section 10(i) and (k) of the said Act. On the rival contentions of the parties the important question of law arises for consideration as to whether the petitioners/University should seek prior approval under AICTE Act to start new department for imparting the courses and programmes in technical education or a technical institution or is an adjunct to the University itself, to conduct the technical courses of its choice and selection. In that regard the relevant provisions as contained in Sections 2(h) and 10(k) of the AICTE Act may be quoted hereinunder:
"Section 2(h) "technical institution" means an institution, not being a University, which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions,"
Section 10(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introducing of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned,"
From the conjoint reading of both the sections it is clear that the University has been kept out of the purview of the aforesaid Act. The University cannot be compelled to seek and obtain prior approval under AICTE Act before starting any new course or programme in technical education. This point is no longer res intrigra as has already been answered by the Apex Court in the case of Bharathidasan University v. The All India Council for Technical Education and Ors., AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2861 wherein it was held as under:
"The appellant University created under the Bharthidasan University Act, 1981 is not required to seek prior approval of the All India Council for the Technical Education (AICTE) to start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to the University itself to conduct technical courses of its choice and selection. R is a full-fledged University recognized by the University Grants Commission also. The definition of 'technical institution' contained in Section 2(h) of AICTE Act excludes from its purview a 'University'. When by definition a 'University' is excluded from a 'technical institution', to interpret that such a clause or such an expression wherever the expression 'technical institution' occurs will include a 'university' will be reading into the Act what is not provided therein. The power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned is covered by Section 10(k) does not cover a 'University' but only a 'technical institution'. If Section 10(k) does not cover a 'university' but only a 'technical institution' a regulation cannot be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of technical institution' to apply for Universities when the Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a 'University' and 'technical institution'.
It may also be mentioned at this stage that under Section 3 of the U.G.C. Act status of the Deemed University was given to Allahabad Agricultural Institute, which is also said to be engaged in doing the work of high standard in specialized academic field. They have also opened several courses in view of the powers vested with the university. In this regard it may also be mentioned that there is no dispute in between the parties that the State or the State University did no role to play in the matter of Deemed University as was also propounded in the case of Bharti Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra, as under:
"Though arguments have been advanced before us that even if some area is covered under Entry 25 in relation to admission, inasmuch as the power has been exercised under Entry 66 which in-pith and substance falls within .that scope the State legislation to that extent has to yield to Central legislation. In this case it is unnecessary to examine this aspect of the matter as the institution in question entirely falls within the scope of the U.G.C. Act. UGC has prescribed the norms of admission also which include fees that can be collected from students and specifically debar collection of Capitation Fee. The University or the State Government has no role to play either in the matter of recognition, affiliation or making any financial grants to exercise powers either as condition thereto or in exercise of Entry 25 of List II.
Further Sections 12, 25 and 26 of the U.G.C. Act also keep the Deemed University out of the control of the State where it is located but at the same time maintenance of higher standard in institution and coordinating teaching in University fall within the powers of the U.G.C. Reliance may also be placed in the cases of (i) T.M.A. Pal Foundation v. State of Karnataka, , (ii) Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., , (iii) Bharti Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra, and (iv) . Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., (2005) SCC 420.
5. We may also make a brief resume of the powers of U.G.C. keeping in view the aims and objects of the U.G.C. Act. It is reproduced below.
"The Constitution of India vests Parliament urith exclusive authority in regard to 'coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions'. It is obvious that neither ' coordination nor determination of standards is possible unless the Central Government has some voice in the determination of standards of teaching and examination in universities, both old and new. It is also necessary to ensure that the available resources are utilized to the best possible effect. The problem has become more acute recently on account of the tendency to multiply universities. The need for a properly constituted Commission for determining and allocating to universities funds made available by the Central Government has also become more urgent on this account."
In the second para it is said that the commission will also have the power to recommend to any university the measures necessary for the reform and improvement of university education and to advise the university concerned upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation. The Commission will act as an expert body to advise the Central Government on problems connected with the coordination of facilities and maintenance of standards in universities.
The preamble of the UGC Act says an Act to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in universities and for that. purpose to establish a University Grants commission. Section 2(f) of this Act defines a university and it means a university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the university concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in tins behalf under this Act. Section 12 provides that it shall be the general duty of the (Commission to take, in consultation with the universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as I may think fit for the promotion and coordination of university education and determination and maintenance, of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities, and for the purpose of its functions under the Act, the Commission may do all such acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (j) thereof. Sections 22 and 23 are important and are being reproduced below:
"22. Right to confer degrees. - (1) The right of conferring or granting degree shall be exercised only by a university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 or an institution "'specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.
(2) Save as provided in Sub-section (1), no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant, any degree.
(3) For the purpose of this section, 'degree' means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette.
23. Prohibition of the use of the word 'University' in certain cases. - No institution, whether a corporate body or not, other than a university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a provincial Act or a State Act shall be entitled to have the word -'University' associated with its c name in any manner whatsoever:
Provided that nothing in this section shall, for a period of two years from the commencement of this Act, apply to an institution which immediately before such commencement, had the word- 'University' associated with its name."
It is pertinent to note that in view of Section 22 of the U.G.C. Act the right of conferring or granting degree can be exercised by the University or .the institution recognized as Deemed University under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act. But at the -line time the U.G.C. has also an obligation to take all such steps as it may thinks fit for promotion and coordination of the Universities' administration and maintenance of standard of teaching and examination and research in Universities. For that purpose if any of the guidelines are issued, they need be looked into as to how far those guidelines are contrary to the powers so vested with the U.G.C. As regards the grant of degree arrangement has been made in Sub-section (3) of Section 22 that 'degree' means such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, by notification in the official gazette. Nothing could be pointed out at this stage that such 'degrees' which are being given by the University do not fall in the notification issued by the Commission in that regard.
6. Here the complainant has also enclosed letter (i) No. F 6-10/2004(CPP-1) dated 19 August, 2004 (Annexure CA-1) issued by the U.G.C. regarding the guidelines to the deemed university. The relevant guideline is extracted hereinunder:
1) to 3)...
4) The UGC guidelines (2000) (Para 115) permits the Deemed to be University to open Centre(s) in its own area of in places other than its head quarter subject to:
I) Prior approval of UGC and concerned State Government.
II) Proposal for starting various academic courses shall have the approval of the UGC.
III) Admission procedure and fee fixation for students shall be in accordance with the norms/rules prescribed by the UGC.
IV) Prior permission from Govt. of India/UGC and also that of the Govt. of the Host country is required for opening academic center(s) in foreign countries.
V) In case of foreign campus/campuses, the remittance of funds shall be governed "by the Reserve Bank of India.
(ii) D.O No. F.6-16/2005(CPP-I) dated April 2005 (Annexure CA 14):
1. All the deemed to be universities shall seek prior approval for the UGC for' any increase in intake capacity or for starting any course. The norms laid down by the concerned statutory councils shall be followed in this regard. To regularize the enhancement in the intake capacity already undertaken or the courses which have already been started without UGC's approval, a one-time opportunity is being given to the deemed to be universities to obtain expost-facto approval within three months of the issue of this letter. For this purpose, the information may be submitted to the U.G.C. expeditiously in the prescribed proforma enclosed as Annexure-1."
Even for establishing Off Campus Centres/Distance Education Studies Programmes, necessary guidelines (Annexure CA-7) were also issued, which may be extracted herein under:
1. The Deemed to be Universities shall be normally authorized only to operate within their own campus to conduct the_ authorized courses falling within the area of their specialization. If the new department is to deal with a subject which is riot the field of specialization or in an allied field, the deemed University may be allowed to start such department only if that field is covered under the objectives for which the deemed university was established, as per the MoA. In case a deemed University desires to start a new department in a field not covered under its MoA, it will have to amend its MoA before opening the department. As such the Deemed to be Universities shall not operate beyond their approved geographical boundaries. However, in deserving cases, the Deemed Universities can start new Departments within the university campus or start off-campus center(s)/institutions/off-shore campus on selection basis or the benefit of the student community by spreading quality education with prior specific permission of the University Grants Commission in each and every individual case. A deemed to be university intending to set-up new Departments within their campus, new off-centre (s)/institution out side the main campus/off-shore campus or starting distance education programme shall be eligible to apply for seeking permission for this purpose only ...."
Certain other correspondences have also been filed to show that the University has violated the guidelines for seeking any approval for setting up new courses/departments and also for the distance education studies centres. There is also reference of MoA in the 'GUIDELINES FOR ESTABLISHING NEW DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE CAMPUS, SETTING UPOF OFF-CAMPUS CENTER(S)/INSTITUTION(S)/OFF-SHORE CAMPUS AND STARTING DISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAMMES BY THE DEEMED UNIVERSITIES' (Annexure - C.A.7). It has not been clarified whether MoA was got amended. However, the fact remains that the approval from the U.G.C. has not been taken. Provisions of the U.G.C. Act are not very specific on the point to have the approval of the U.G.C before introducing any new course or subject. However, the guidelines so time and again issued by the U.G.C. would have the impact on the introduction of the new course. That would all be a matter of investigation and adjudication. Matter of recognition of courses by the U.G.C had also come for consideration in the case of P.M. Bhargava v. University Grants Commission, AIR 200 Supreme Court 3478:
The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the UGC shows that the UGC constituted a nine-member Committee which after discussion and deliberations recommended opening of the departments of "Jyotir Vigyan" in universities for award of degrees. The Committee has recommended to create such courses only in 20 out of 41 universities which had applied for the same and the degree which would be awarded will be B.A./B.A. (Hons.) M.A./Ph. D. The decision to start the course has been taken by an expert body constituted by the UGC. The Courts are not expert in academic matters and it is not for them Jo decide as what course should be taught in university and what should be their curriculum. This caution was sounded in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, wherein Gajendragadkar, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Constitution Bench held that it would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be.
7. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioners have not responded to the letters sent by the U.G.C. or clarified the position for such irregularities. Non-response to the letters of U.G.C. would not constitute any offence where there is no violation of the Codal provisions, petitioners cannot be held prima facie criminally liable. Presumption of innocence is a human right see Narendra and Anr. v. State of M.P., (para 31)]. Article 21 in view of its expensive meaning not only protects life and liberty but also envisages a fair procedure. Liberty of person should not ordinarily be interfered with unless there exists cogent grounds therefor.
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the arrest of the petitioners for the offences indicated above shall remain stayed till the submission of the report
9. Petition is disposed of finally.