# Committee of Management v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 723 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2010-07-21 - **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 6792 of 2010 - **Bench:** Pradeep Kant, Ritu Raj Awasthi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41684 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 2 All] Committee of Management V State of U.P. and others 723 10. The realisation of remaining 50 % amount of fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of appeal. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 21.07.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT, J. THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J. Writ Petition No. 6792 of 2010 Committee of Management ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondent Constitution of India Art.226-Grant of permanent affiliation-while granting Temporary affiliation- No such condition set-up-institution started classes of 3 years graduation-course-before expiry of Temporary affiliation applied for permanent affiliation-objections duly meetout by management-held-Once affiliation granted an institution started functioning-hardly any justification for the authority to withheld or refuse permanent affiliation-except on exceptional circumstances-direction issued to take necessary decision within two week. Held: Para 8 Institutions are allowed to be opened by the private persons for facilitating education to all those who are interested in getting higher studies. Once the State Government grants no objection for establishing an institution, particularly where courses like B.A., B.Sc. and B.Com, are taught and due affiliation is granted by the University, may be temporary or permanent, there would hardly be any ground for closure of such an institution by not granting permanent affiliation or keeping the matter pending, unless, of course, there is some very exceptional and pertinent reason for refusal of affiliation. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.) 1. Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, on behalf of respondent no.2 by Dr. Ravi Kumar Misra and on behalf of respondent no.3 by Sri D.K. Upadhyaya. 2. With the consent of the parties' counsel, the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 3. The petitioner institution was granted due affiliation by the University on 10.8.05 for three academic sessions. Before the said period could expire, the petitioner applied for permanent affiliation. The course in question is B.A. (Art Faculty). Despite the petitioner having approached for grant of permanent affiliation, before the expiry of the period of temporary affiliation, the State Government, despite recommendations made by the University, did not grant approval for affiliation and rather raised two objections on 14.7.08, namely, (i) though the land of the institution was recorded in its name, but it was not clear as to how much land of the total area of 2.06 hectare was in the name of the institution and how much land was in the name of law college. The same objection was raised with respect to certain other plots; and (ii) it was not clear whether the boundary wall was constructed or not. The petitioner institution submitted its reply on 18.7.08. Alongwith the said reply, the petitioner also furnished the 724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 report of the Tehsildar, Sadar in respect of the said objections and also the letter of the State Government. 4. Despite the aforesaid objections being removed, the State Government is sitting tight over the matter and now an order has been passed that the petitioner institution would not take any admission till the affiliation is granted, the temporary affiliation having come to an end on 30.6.08. Dr. Ravi Kumar Misra, appearing for the University, says that the University has forwarded its recommendations, after being satisfied with the reply, to the State Government on 11.7.09. No reason has been given by the University for not forwarding its recommendations, after the receipt of objections, for a period of more than one year, but in any case, there cannot be any justification also with the State Government to keep the matter pending and not to take an appropriate decision in the matter, knowing fully well that the petitioner institution is an existing institution where temporary affiliation had come to an end on 30.6.08 and, therefore, the college would be deprived of, taking admissions unless further affiliation is granted. We can appreciate that if any substantive objection would be levelled against the institution asking for permanent affiliation, to refuse or require the institution to remove such a defect, but we do not find any reason that when the institution, as in the instant case, was given temporary affiliation under the same conditions, then how these objections were relevant for granting permanent affiliation. 5. The order granting temporary affiliation dated 10.8.05 (Annexure-2) does not indicate anywhere that the institution was required to meet any condition with respect to the land over which the same was constructed, the terms and conditions having not changed and the institution having not incurred any shortcomings during the course of affiliation, there would apparently no justification, either to withhold or refuse permanent affiliation. 6. It can also not be appreciated that while considering the grant of permanent affiliation, frivolous objections be raised by the State Government, which, as a matter of fact, are not at all relevant. Besides, once the institution has furnished the details and so to say, the objections stood removed as far back as on 18.7.08, there could not be any ground for refusing the permanent affiliation and much less, not considering the grant thereof and keeping it pending for no rhyme and reason. 7. It cannot be presumed that the State Government is oblivious of the fact that once the temporary affiliation has been granted for three academic sessions, not only the students who are admitted in the first academic session would have a right to continue, to complete their studies of three years irrespective of the fact whether permanent affiliation is granted or not, but also those students, who have been admitted in the subsequent two academic sessions would also be entitled to continue with their studies and complete their courses irrespective of the fact that affiliation is further granted or not. 2 All] Karam Chand Thapar Brother (C.S.) Limited V Nandini Roofing System Pvt. Limited 725 8. Institutions are allowed to be opened by the private persons for facilitating education to all those who are interested in getting higher studies. Once the State Government grants no objection for establishing an institution, particularly where courses like B.A., B.Sc. and B.Com, are taught and due affiliation is granted by the University, may be temporary or permanent, there would hardly be any ground for closure of such an institution by not granting permanent affiliation or keeping the matter pending, unless, of course, there is some very exceptional and pertinent reason for refusal of affiliation. 9. The persons, who invest huge amount in establishing a college, are always in a state of suspense as to whether their institutions would be allowed to take admissions, after the period of temporary affiliation is expired, or not. 10. Such a situation cannot be appreciated. 11. We, under the circumstances, dispose of the writ petition finally with the direction that the State Government shall forthwith take a decision regarding approval for grant of affiliation, say within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in the light of the observations made above, and the said decision shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHYAM SHANKAR TIWARI, J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7899 of 2010 Karam Chand Thapar Brother (C.S.) Limited ...Petitioner Versus Nandini Roofing System Private Limited and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ajay Bhanot Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. Practice of Procedure- Interim Ordergranted for limited period-case listed for hearing on several dates but no further extension-held-stay would not continue automatically unless extended by specific terms. Held: Para 13 In that case an injunction order was passed for a limited period and thereafter, it could not be extended. Since on the date fixed the Presiding Officer was on leave and later on, the case having been transferred to another court, the order was neither extended nor vacated. Despite the fact that even the application for extension was pending. The High Court took the view that once no order of extension of the interim order was passed and the interim order was operating till particular date it would not continue automatically and would cease on the date on which it was granted. Case Law discussed: 2009 (3) AWC 3115, 2007(3) SCC-470, 2008 (8) SCC-348.