# Shresth Shiksha Sanstha v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1265
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-11-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petitioner No.48242 of 2006
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shresth-shiksha-sanstha-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40697
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Act,
1998Section 26 (2)-No objection grant by
State
of
U.P.-for
establishment
of
National University-withdrawn by state
on pretext that the certificate granted by
Secretary Medical Education and not by
Higher Education-order passed without
application of mind-can not sustainmatter requires re-consideration.

Held: Para 18 & 19

In the facts .of the case where the State
of
Uttar
Pradesh
has
granted
'No
Objection Certificate' mentioned above
to petitioner, it was incumbent upon the
State to apply mind in the matter of,
granting/withdrawing
'No
Objection
Certificate'
for
establishing
an
Institution
in
the
National
Capital
Region. 'No Objection Certificate' once
granted to the petitioner cannot be
withdrawn by the State only on the
ground that the State of U.P. through
Secretary, Medication Educations and
Special Secretary to the Chancellor of
U.P.
State
Universities
granted
'No
Objection Certificate' and not the Higher
. Education Department.
Considering the facts mentioned above,
this Court is of the view that the
impugned orders suffer from error of law
apparent on the face of record and was
passed without application of mind and
on non-consideration of relevant facts
stated
above
and
as
such
matter
requires
reconsideration
afresh
in
accordance with law.

## Text

1264 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petitioner No.48242 of
2006

Shresth Shiksha Sanstha
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anoop Trivedi
Sri Shashi Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri C.B. Yadav
S.C.

Indraprastha
University
Act,
1998Section 26 (2)-No objection grant by
State
of
U.P.-for
establishment
of
National University-withdrawn by state
on pretext that the certificate granted by
Secretary Medical Education and not by
Higher Education-order passed without
application of mind-can not sustainmatter requires re-consideration.

Held: Para 18 & 19

In the facts .of the case where the State
of
Uttar
Pradesh
has
granted
'No
Objection Certificate' mentioned above
to petitioner, it was incumbent upon the
State to apply mind in the matter of,
granting/withdrawing
'No
Objection
Certificate'
for
establishing
an
Institution
in
the
National
Capital
Region. 'No Objection Certificate' once
granted to the petitioner cannot be
withdrawn by the State only on the
ground that the State of U.P. through
Secretary, Medication Educations and
Special Secretary to the Chancellor of
U.P.
State
Universities
granted
'No
Objection Certificate' and not the Higher
. Education Department.
Considering the facts mentioned above,
this Court is of the view that the
impugned orders suffer from error of law
apparent on the face of record and was
passed without application of mind and
on non-consideration of relevant facts
stated
above
and
as
such
matter
requires
reconsideration
afresh
in
accordance with law.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava. J.)

1.

Petitioner-Shresth
Shiksha
Sanstha has preferred this writ petition
challenging
orders
dated
19.8.2004,
17.5.2006 and 31. 7 .2006, passed by the
State of U.P. in the matter of cancellation
of 'No Objection Certificate' for imparting
higher education course by the petitioner
in Ghaziabad with affiliation to Guru
Gobind Singh Indraprastha University,
Delhi
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
Indraprastha University).

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

3. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Anoop Trivedi,
learned counsel for petitioner, urged that
the Indraprastha Vishwavidyalaya Act,
1998 'was enacted by the Legislative
Assembly of Delhi and the jurisdiction of
the University is defined under Section 4
of the Act. The University is competent to
exercise powers within the area of
National Capital Region as defined in the
National Capital Region Planning Board
Act, 1985, which is an Act of Parliament.
National Capital Region has been defined
under Section 2(f) of the National Capital
Region Planning Board Act, 1985 which
comprises
whole
of
District
of
Bulandshahr comprising the Tehsils of
Anupshahr,
Bulandshahr,
Khurja,
Sikanderbad, whole of District of Meerut
3All] Shresth Shiksha Sanstha V. State of U.P. and another 1265
comprising the Tehsils of Meert, Bagpat,
Mawana and Sardhana and the whole of
District of Ghaziabad comprising the
Tehsils of Ghaziabad and Hapur. He
further urged that National Capital Region
Planning Board consists of members
which includes Union Minister for Works
and Housing, the Chief Minister of the
State of Haryana, the Chief Minister of
the State of Rajasthan, the Chief Minister
of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the
Administrator of the Union Territory.
Under the provisions of Indraprastha
Vishwavidyalaya' Act, 1998 in order to
establish a College under the Indraprastha
University Act, 1998 within the periphery
of National Capital Region 'No Objection
Certificate' of the State is necessary. It
was urged that 'No Objection' was granted
to the petitioner, but subsequently it was
wrongly and illegally withdrawn without
any valid reason and, thus, the orders
withdrawing 'No Objection' as well as
rejecting petitioner's representation for
granting 'No Objection Certificate' are
liable to be quashed.

4. In reply to the same, learned
Standing Counsel urged that petitioner
wants to establish and run Educational
Institution within the territorial limit of
the State of Uttar Pradesh which could be
granted under the provisions of law
enacted by the Legislature of the State of
Uttar Pradesh. It is further urged that for
establishing any Institution within the
territorial limits of the State of Uttar
Pradesh, petitioner is bound to comply the
provisions of the U.P. State University
Act, 1973 and not the Indraprastha
University Act, 1998, which is not the Act
to regulate and control Universities
established within the limits of State of
Uttar Pradesh. He further urged that
petitioner who has relied upon the
judgment reported in 2002 (8) SCC, 481,
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State
of Karnataka and others cannot establish
any
Professional
Institution
ignoring
Rules and Regulations of the State of
Uttar Pradesh to control such institutions
and as such 'No Objection Certification'
was rightly withdrawn which is strictly in
accordance with law. Petitioner is bound
to comply the terms and conditions
contained in U.P. State University Act,
1973 before establishing any Professional
Institution in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

5. In Rejoinder, learned counsel for
petitioner referred Paragraph7 of the writ
petition, to the effect, that the National
Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985
was enacted with, concurrence of the
Legislatures of the all concerned States
including State of U.P. The Legislature of
State of Uttar Pradesh also passed
resolutions to constitute National Capital
Region
Planning
Board
to develop
infrastructure in the National Capital
Region to be regulated by the Parliament
by National Capital Region Planning
Board Act. He urged that Pargraph-7 of
the writ petition has (lot been denied in
Paragraph-6 of the Counter Affidavit,
hence in the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot
refuse for 'No Objection Certificate' to
petitioner for affiliation to Indraprastha
University which has jurisdiction in the
National Capital Region.

6. I Carefully considered argument~
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials on record.

7. It is clear from the record that by
an order dated 17.6.2004, State of Uttar
Pradesh granted 'No Objection Certificate'
to affiliation of petitioner with Indraprasth
University, Delhi to teach professional
1266 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Courses such as Bachelor of Journalism,
Mass Communication, LL.B., B.Ed.,
B.B.A and B.C.A. on certain conditions in
Ghaziabad/Greater NOIDA. Aforesaid
'No Objection Certificate' was withdrawn
by the Principal Secretary (Education),
State of U.P under the impugned order
dated 19.8.2004. Representations of the
petitioner for granting 'No Objection
Certificate' which was directed to be
considered by an order of this' Court
dated 13.2.2006 passed in Writ Petition
No. 8541 of 2005 were also rejected by an
order dated 17th May, 2006.

8. For consideration of arguments of
learned counsel for the parties certain
provisions of Indraprastha University Act,
1998 are necessary to be quoted. For
ready
reference
Section
4
of
the
Indraprastha University Act, 1998 is
being reproduced below:

"4(1) Save as otherwise provided by
or under this Act, the limits of the area
within which the University shall exercise
its powers, shall be those of The National
Capital Region as defined in the National
Capital region Planning Board Act, 1985
(2 of 1985)."

9. The powers of the University has
been defined under Section 5 of the Act,
the relevant portion is being reproduced
below:

"5. The University shall have the
following powers, namely:-
x

x

x

(14)
to
declare
colleges
and
institutions, with their consent, in the
manner
prescribed,
as
autonomous
colleges and institutions, and determine
the extent of the autonomy and the
matters in relation to which they may
exercise such autonomy."

10. Sections 5(21) and 5(21A) of the
Indraprastha University Act are also
relevant, same are being reproduced
below for ready reference:-

"(21) to admit to its privileges
colleges and institutions, not maintained
by the University, in accordance with
such conditions as may be prescribed and
to withdraw all or any of these privileges;
(21 A) to establish and maintain
colleges, institutions and such other
centres of education, research, training
and extension as deemed appropriate by
the University."

11. The National Capital Region
Planning Board Act, 1985 was enacted by
the Parliament. Under this Act, National
Capital Region has been defined under
Section 2(f) of the Act according to which
"National Capital Region" means the
areas specified in the Schedule, provided,
that the Central Government with the
consent of the Government of the
concerned participating State and in
consultation with the Board, may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, add
any area to the Schedule or exclude any
area therefrom.

12. Preamble of the National Capital
Region
Planning
Board
Act,
1985
mentions that this Act was enacted after
receiving resolutions from all the Houses
of concerned State Legislatures. Relevant
of the Preamble of the National Capital
Region Planning Board Act, 1985 is being
quoted below:-

"And Whereas in pursuance of the
provisions of clause (1) of article 252 of
3All] Shresth Shiksha Sanstha V. State of U.P. and another 1267
the Constitution, resolutions have been
passed by all the Houses of the
Legislatures of the States of Haryana,
Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh to the effect
that the matters aforesaid should be
regulated by those States by Parliament
law."

13. The Schedule of the area
prepared under Section 2(f) of the
National Capital Region Planning Board
Act, 1985 specifies the areas of different
States, Le., Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and
Uttar Pradesh which shall be governed by
the National Capital Region Planning
Board Act, 1985. Section 3 of the
Schedule is relevant which mentions areas
of State of Uttar Pradesh, the same is
being
reproduced
below
for
ready
reference:-

"3. Uttar Pradesh
(i) The whole of District of Bulandshahr
comprising
the
Tehsils
of
Anupshahr, Bulandshahr, Khurja and
Sikanderabad;
(ii) The whole of District of Meerut
comprising the Tehsils of Meerut,
Bagpat, Mawana and Sardhana; and
(iii) The whole of District of Ghaziabad
comprising the Tehsils of Ghaziabad
and Hapur."

14. It· was also brought to the notice
of the Court that under Section 26(2) of
the Indraprastha University Act, 1998, the
Board of Management of the Guru
Gobind Singh Indraprastha University,
with the prior approval of the Chancellor,
may make the statute relating to the
conditions under which colleges and
institutions may be admitted to the
University and the conditions under
which same may be withdrawn. Statute
(ii) makes it clear that no college or
institution shall be admitted to the
privileges of the University unless it has
been granted a no-objection certificate by
the concerned state government and
recognized by the appropriate statutory
authority, wherever applicable, for the
subjects and courses of study for which
affiliation is being sought.

15. Considering the facts borne out
from the different statutes and different
provisions of law, it is clear that· by
resolutions of all the Houses of concerned
Legislatures including the State of Uttar
Pradesh, National Capital Region was
established and the Chief Minister of
Uttar Pradesh is also a Member of the
National Capital Region Board. It is also
clear from the record that Guru Gobind
Singh
Indraprastha
University
could
establish an Institution affiliated with the
Indraprastha University in the National
Capital Region only after a 'No Objection
Certificate' is granted by the concerned
State. In the instant case, petitioner
proposed to establish a Professional
Institution in the National Capital Region
falling within the territory of State of
Uttar Pradesh. The State of Uttar Pradesh,
though earlier granted a 'No Objection
Certificate' on certain conditions, but
subsequently
said
'No
Objection
Certificate' was withdrawn on the ground
that under the U.P. State University Act
there is no provision for granting 'No
Objection Certificate' to the Institutions
affiliated with the Universities established
outside the State.

16. I have also carefully gone
through the impugned orders,' which state
that on reconsideration at higher level 'No
Objection Certificate' issued to Shresth
Shiksha Sansthan for conducting higher
educational courses in Ghaziabad with
1268 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
affiliation
of
Guru
Gobind
Singh
lndraprastha University was withdrawn.
The impugned order passed on 19th
August, 2004 does not assign any reason
for withdrawing 'No Objection Certificate'
to the petitioner.

17. From the materials on record, it
transpires that State of Uttar Pradesh
through Secretary, Medical Education,
has
already
granted
'No
Objection
Certificate' to Army Welfare Society and
State of Uttar Pradesh granted 'No
Objection
Certificate'
to
Vaccine
Homeopathy College, Greater NOIDA.
Similarly,
Special
Secretary
to
the
Chancellor
had
also
granted
'No
Objection Certificate' to B.L.S. College of
Management, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad.
The only ground mentioned in the order
of State of U.P. dated 17th May, 2006 is
that 'No Objection Certificate' was given
to
Army
Welfare
Society
as
an
exceptional case and further there was no
evidence to show that 'No Objection
Certificates' were granted to two other
Institutions.
Subsequently
by
a
representation dated 12th June, 2006,
petitioner brought to the notice of the
Secretary
(Higher
Education),
U.P.
Government,
Secretariat,
Lucknow
annexing the 'No Objection Certificate'
dated 13.6.2003 granted to Vaccine
Homeopathy College, Greater NOIDA
and 'No Objection Certificate' granted to
B. L.S. Institute of Management, Mohan
Nagar, Ghaziabad dated 17.2.2000 by the
Special Secretary to the Chancellor. It
was also brought to the notice of the State
that those Institutions were granted 'No
Objection Certificate' for affiliation to
Gur
Gobind
Singh
Indraprastha
University
and
B.L.S.
Institute
of
Management, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad
was granted 'No Objection Certificate' for
affiliation
to
Guru
Gobind
Singh
Indraprastha University and thereafter its
affiliation to Chaudhary Charan Singh
University, Meerut was withdrawn. The
State of Uttar Pradesh while deciding
petitioner's representation dated 12.6.2006
did not consider these relevant facts at all
and rejected the representation on the
ground
that
these
'No
Objection
Certificates' were not granted by the
Higher Education Department, but by
other Departments of State of Uttar
Pradesh.

18. In the facts .of the case where
the State of Uttar Pradesh has granted 'No
Objection Certificate' mentioned above to
petitioner, it was incumbent upon the
State to apply mind in the matter of,
granting/withdrawing
'No
Objection
Certificate' for establishing an Institution
in the National Capital Region. 'No
Objection Certificate' once granted to the
petitioner cannot be withdrawn by the
State only on the ground that the State of
U.P.
through
Secretary,
Medication
Educations and Special Secretary to the
Chancellor of U.P. State Universities
granted 'No Objection Certificate' and not
the Higher. Education Department.

19. Considering the facts mentioned
above, this Court is of the view that the
impugned orders suffer from error of law
apparent on the face of record and was
passed without application of mind and on
non-consideration of relevant facts stated
above and as such matter requires
reconsideration afresh in accordance with
law.

20. With the result writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. Impugned orders
dated 19.8.2006, 17.5.2006 and 31.7.2006
are quashed and the matter is relegated to
3All] Dukhan Prasad Singh V. Union of India and others 1269
the State of Uttar Pradesh to pass an
appropriate reasoned order in accordance
with law after hearing the petitioners and
considering all relevant factors mentioned
in the judgment including 'No Objection
Certificate' given to other Institutions and
in the light of the observations made in
the judgment within six weeks' from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order.

No order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJAY MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55257 of 2004

Dukhan Prasad Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amit Saxena
Sri P.N. Saxena
Sri D.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.C. Sinha, Asst. S.C. India
S.S.C.

(A)
C.C.S.
Rules
1972-Rule
9
(4)-
Pension-with held-on the ground of
pendancy of judicial proceeding-for same
occurrence in departmental proceeding
petitioner
was
found
innocentcontinuance of judicial proceeding even
after the retirement-can not be basis for
denying the pensionary benefits-except
the in case of conviction in serious crime
or guilty of grave mis conduct.

Held: Para 22
Thus, it is well settled by the Apex Court
that the pension is not a bounty. It is a
legal entitlement which can only be
curtailed by an express provision of law
and not otherwise. Non-mention of the
word 'continued' in respect of the
judicial proceeding in sub-rule(4) of Rule
9 of the Pension Rules is significant. As
sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Pension
Rules does not contemplate a situation
where judicial proceedings have been
instituted prior to the superannuation of
the
Government
servant
and
are
continued after his superannuation, we
are of the considered opinion that the
order of provisional pension as provided
in Rule 69 of the Rules could not have
been passed and instead the regular
pension ought to have been given. It
may be mentioned here that under Rule
8 of the Pension Rules future good
conduct is an implied condition of every
grant of pension and its continuance and
if the pensioner is convicted of a serious
crime or is found guilty of grave
misconduct, the appointing authority
may, by order in writing withhold or
withdraw a pension or a part thereof,
whether permanently or for a specified
period. Thus, the authorities have been
given sufficient powers to withhold or
withdraw the pension either in full or in
part, permanently or for a specified
period
in
case
of
conviction
of
a
pensioner in a serious crime or he being
found guilty of grave misconduct.
Case law discussed:
1971 (2) SCC-330
1983 (1) SCC-305
1985 (3) SCC-345
1987 (2) SCC-179
1992 (2) SCC-664
1996 (10) SCC-148
2001 (8) SCC-71

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 226Interest-pension-delayed
due
on
pendancy of judicial proceeding against
the
petitioner-held
illegal-petitioner
entitled for full pension and not for
provisional pension-held-entitled for 10
% interest per annum on difference of
amount.