# CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 211
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-02-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2024
- **Bench:** Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sandeep Mehta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/cmj-foundation-and-others-v-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-38218
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

Whether the appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University
was made with due adherence to the procedure, as mandated
by law; whether the dissolution order dated 31st March, 2014
was passed with due adherence to the procedure provided under
Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009 and in compliance of
the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13th September,
2013 in SLP(C) No. 19617 of 2013 titled as "CMJ Foundation &
Ors. v. State of Meghalaya and Ors."; whether the Division Bench
of the High Court of Meghalaya was justified in remanding the
matter to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration on merit,
while allowing the Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017.
Headnotes†
Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 - s.14(1) -
Non-compliance with - Appointment of the Chancellor of the
CMJ University, if was non-est and void ab initio:
Held: Yes - Under s.14(1), the Sponsor must appoint a person
suitable to be appointed as the Chancellor of the University,
however, such appointment is 'subject to the approval' of the
Visitor - Thus, the appointment of the Chancellor, made by the
University, shall require mandatory approval by the Visitor failing
which, such appointment would be non est in the eyes of law - The
phrase 'subject to' means 'conditional upon' in law - Therefore,
the appointment of Chancellor was conditional upon the approval
of the Visitor - The Visitor is not merely a titular head and the
appointment of any person as Chancellor by the Sponsor would
attain validity only upon the approval of the Visitor - However,
in the present case, the Visitor's approval was never granted
for the appointment of the Chancellor of the University - Thus,
the procedure prescribed u/s.14(1) for the appointment of the
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1021
CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others
Chancellor was not duly followed by the CMJ University - Division
Bench of the High Court rightly declared the appointment of the
Chancellor of the CMJ University as invalid and non-est in the
eyes of law - To this extent, the impugned judgment does not
suffer from any infirmity. [Paras 36, 39, 44, 46]
Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 - s.48(2) - State
Government dissolved the CMJ University vide order dated
31.03.2014 - Aforesaid dissolution order, if was passed
adhering to the procedure provided u/s.48 and in compliance of
the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2013
in SLP(C) No.19617 of 2013 wherein it took cognizance of
the recommendations issued by the Visitor indicating the
irregularities committed by the CMJ University and directed
the State Government to take appropriate action and pass a
speaking order u/s.48, after giving due notice and opportunity
of hearing to the appellants:
Held: Yes - On facts, proper opportunity to show cause and take
necessary measures for rectification was extended to the appellants
against the proposed action of dissolution - State Government
examined the replies to the show cause notices and passed the
well-reasoned order dated 31.03.2014, by taking recourse to
the powers conferred by s.48(2), dissolving the CMJ University
with immediate effect on the grounds that the appellants neither
satisfactorily explained the allegations set out in the show cause
notices, nor could they provide adequate justification for the evident
anomalies and irregularities - Also, the reminder letter dated
03.06.2013 issued by the State Government was in compliance
with s.48(2) - Decision of the State Government dated 31.03.2014
dissolving the CMJ University, affirmed - Educational Institution -
Dissolution. [Paras 55, 56, 58, 59]
Practice and Procedure - Remand of the matter, when not
proper - Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was
justified in remanding the matter to the Single Judge for
reconsideration on merit, while allowing the Writ Appeal:
Held: By way of the impugned judgment, the Division Bench had
quashed and set aside the judgment dated 16.07.2015 passed by
the Single Jud

## Text

_Characters 0–39,862 of 82,836. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39862 for what follows._

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1020 : 2025 INSC 211
CMJ Foundation and Others
v.
State of Meghalaya and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2024)
13 February 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University
was made with due adherence to the procedure, as mandated
by law; whether the dissolution order dated 31st March, 2014
was passed with due adherence to the procedure provided under
Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009 and in compliance of
the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13th September,
2013 in SLP(C) No. 19617 of 2013 titled as "CMJ Foundation &
Ors. v. State of Meghalaya and Ors."; whether the Division Bench
of the High Court of Meghalaya was justified in remanding the
matter to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration on merit,
while allowing the Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017.
Headnotes†
Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 - s.14(1) -
Non-compliance with - Appointment of the Chancellor of the
CMJ University, if was non-est and void ab initio:
Held: Yes - Under s.14(1), the Sponsor must appoint a person
suitable to be appointed as the Chancellor of the University,
however, such appointment is 'subject to the approval' of the
Visitor - Thus, the appointment of the Chancellor, made by the
University, shall require mandatory approval by the Visitor failing
which, such appointment would be non est in the eyes of law - The
phrase 'subject to' means 'conditional upon' in law - Therefore,
the appointment of Chancellor was conditional upon the approval
of the Visitor - The Visitor is not merely a titular head and the
appointment of any person as Chancellor by the Sponsor would
attain validity only upon the approval of the Visitor - However,
in the present case, the Visitor's approval was never granted
for the appointment of the Chancellor of the University - Thus,
the procedure prescribed u/s.14(1) for the appointment of the
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1021
CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others
Chancellor was not duly followed by the CMJ University - Division
Bench of the High Court rightly declared the appointment of the
Chancellor of the CMJ University as invalid and non-est in the
eyes of law - To this extent, the impugned judgment does not
suffer from any infirmity. [Paras 36, 39, 44, 46]
Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 - s.48(2) - State
Government dissolved the CMJ University vide order dated
31.03.2014 - Aforesaid dissolution order, if was passed
adhering to the procedure provided u/s.48 and in compliance of
the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2013
in SLP(C) No.19617 of 2013 wherein it took cognizance of
the recommendations issued by the Visitor indicating the
irregularities committed by the CMJ University and directed
the State Government to take appropriate action and pass a
speaking order u/s.48, after giving due notice and opportunity
of hearing to the appellants:
Held: Yes - On facts, proper opportunity to show cause and take
necessary measures for rectification was extended to the appellants
against the proposed action of dissolution - State Government
examined the replies to the show cause notices and passed the
well-reasoned order dated 31.03.2014, by taking recourse to
the powers conferred by s.48(2), dissolving the CMJ University
with immediate effect on the grounds that the appellants neither
satisfactorily explained the allegations set out in the show cause
notices, nor could they provide adequate justification for the evident
anomalies and irregularities - Also, the reminder letter dated
03.06.2013 issued by the State Government was in compliance
with s.48(2) - Decision of the State Government dated 31.03.2014
dissolving the CMJ University, affirmed - Educational Institution -
Dissolution. [Paras 55, 56, 58, 59]
Practice and Procedure - Remand of the matter, when not
proper - Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was
justified in remanding the matter to the Single Judge for
reconsideration on merit, while allowing the Writ Appeal:
Held: By way of the impugned judgment, the Division Bench had
quashed and set aside the judgment dated 16.07.2015 passed by
the Single Judge and upheld the procedure followed by the State
Government in ordering the dissolution of the University u/s.48 -
Division Bench was fully justified in quashing and setting aside the
1022
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Single Judge which had
set aside the dissolution order dated 31.03.2014 and the show
cause notices issued to the University by the State Government -
However, it remanded the matter to the Single Judge for taking
appropriate decision regarding the validity of order dissolving the
University on merit, observing that the Single Judge only examined
the dissolution order on procedural framework and did not enter
into the merits of the said decision - The remand to the Single
Judge was entirely unjustified and unwarranted as the controversy
in the present case was exhaustively examined and conclusively
determined on merits by the Division Bench, leaving no substantive
questions or unresolved issues for re-determination on merits by
the Single Judge - Thus, once the Division Bench had approved
the procedure adopted by the State, in passing the dissolution
order, the exercise of remand was an empty formality - Order
of remand legally flawed and untenable - Wednesbury Principle.
[Paras 60-65]
Interpretation of Statutes - Chandra Mohan Jha University
Act, 2009 - Absence of a deeming provision creating a legal
fiction - Legal fiction can only be created by a statute and not
by judicial interpretation - Plea of the appellants that repeated
requests were made to the Visitor of the CMJ University seeking
approval for the appointment of the Chancellor and a letter was
also sent stating that if the Visitor did not provide approval
within the specified date, it would be deemed as approval -
However, there was no response - Thus, the appellants acting
in a bona fide manner assumed that such inaction/omission
on part of the Visitor amounted to a 'deemed approval' for
the appointment of the Chancellor:
Held: Such contention is misplaced and unsubstantiated by
law - There is no deeming provision in the Act creating such legal
fiction as was assumed by the appellants - In the absence of any
statutory flavour, a provision cannot be interpreted to create a
legal fiction - Creating a fiction through judicial interpretation will
amount to legislation, which is exclusively the domain of legislature.
[Paras 42, 43]
Case Law Cited
V. Balasubramaniam & Others v. Tamilnadu Housing Board & Others
[1988] 1 SCR 228 : (1987) 4 SCC 738; Trilochan Mishra etc. v.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1023
CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others
State of Orissa & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 733; Union of India & Ors. v.
M/s Bhimsen Walaiti Ram [1970] 2 SCR 594 : AIR 1971 SC 2295;
State of Orissa & Ors. v. Harinarayan Jaiswal & Ors. [1972] 3 SCR
784 : AIR 1972 SC 1816; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Vijay Bahadur
Singh & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1234; Laxmikant & Ors. v. Satyawan &
Ors. [1996] 3 SCR 532 : AIR 1996 SC 2052; K.R.C.S. Balakrishna
Chetty & Sons & Co. v. State of Madras [1961] 2 SCR 736 : 1960
SCC OnLine SC 179; Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd. [2013]
10 SCR 73 : (2013) 10 SCC 253; Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v. Modern
Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. [2010] 13 SCR
621 : 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1169; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham
[1997] Supp. 3 SCR 549 : 1997 SCC OnLine SC 135; Gohil
Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [2017] 3
SCR 401 : (2017) 13 SCC 621; Nadekerappa since Deceased by
LRs. and Ors. v. Pillamma since Deceased by LRs. and Ors. [2022]
14 SCR 1046 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 387 - relied on.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. v. Friends Coop. Housing
Society Ltd. & Anr. [1995] 3 SCR 729 : (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 456;
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh & Anr. [2003] 1
SCR 593 : (2003) 4 SCC 239; Ashok Kumar Das & Ors. v. University
of Burdwan & Ors. [2010] 3 SCR 429 : (2010) 3 SCC 616; Chet
Ram Vashist v. MCD and Another [1981] 1 SCR 1073 : (1980) 4
SCC 647; CMJ Foundation & Ors. v. State of Meghalaya and Ors.,
Order dated 13.09.2013 of Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 19617
of 2013 - referred to.
List of Acts
Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009; University Grants Act,
1956; Meghalaya Private Universities (Regulation of Establishment
and Maintenance of Standards) Act, 2012.
List of Keywords
Sections 14 (1), 48 of the Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009;
Chandra Mohan Jha Foundation; Chandra Mohan Jha University;
CMJ University; Chancellor of the University; Appointment of
Chancellor; Due adherence to the procedure; Visitor; Ex-Officio;
Governor ex-officio Visitor; Visitor's approval; Mandatory approval;
Sponsor; 'subject to'; Subject to the Approval; 'Conditional upon';
Deeming provision; Deemed Approval; Legal fiction; Dissolution;
Dissolution Order; Irregularities; Anomalies; Deficiencies; Management
1024
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of the CMJ University; Reconsideration on merit; Remand Order;
Non Est; Void ab inito; Wednesbury Principles; Compliance; Directions;
Adjudication on Merits.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2021 of the High Court
of Meghalaya at Shillong in WA No. 14 of 2017
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Anupam Lal Das, Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Advs., Philemon
Nongbri, Ahanthem Henry, A. Rohen Singh, Ms. Anne Mathew,
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Atul Dong, Aniket Patel.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv., Philemon Nongbri, Ahanthem Henry,
A. Rohen Singh, Ms. Anne Mathew, Ms. Pragati Neekhra,
Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the
following parts: -
INDEX*
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX ...............................................................
3
B.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS ......
17
C.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTSTATE .....................................................................................
22
D.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION ..........................................
26
E.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ............................................
27
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1025
CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others
ISSUE No. I: "Whether the appointment of the Chancellor
of the CMJ University was made with due adherence to the
procedure, as mandated by law"? .........................................
27
ISSUE No. II: "Whether the dissolution order dated 31st
March, 2014 was passed with due adherence to the
procedure provided under Section 48 of the CMJ University
Act, 2009 and in compliance of the directions issued by this
Court vide order dated 13th September, 2013 in SLP(C) No.
19617 of 2013 titled as "CMJ Foundation & Ors. v. State
of Meghalaya and Ors."? .................................................
35
ISSUE No. III: "Whether the Division Bench of the High
Court of Meghalaya was justified in remanding the matter
to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration on merit,
while allowing the Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017"? ................
44
F.
CONCLUSION ....................................................................
47
1.
Application for impleadment is allowed.
2.
These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and order dated
6th May, 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Meghalaya at Shillong1 in Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017, whereby the
judgment and order dated 16th July, 2015 passed by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition(C) No. 177 of 2014
was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the
learned Single Judge to take appropriate decision regarding the
validity of the order, dissolving the Chander Mohan Jha University,2
on merit preferably within a period of six months.
3.
Vide judgment and order dated 16th July, 2015, the learned Single
Judge of the High Court quashed and set aside the order dated 31st
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as 'High Court'.
2
Hereinafter, being referred to as the 'CMJ University'.
1026
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
March, 2014, passed by the Government of Meghalaya3 dissolving
the University and also quashed the show cause notices dated 12th
November, 2013 and 24th January, 2014, issued to the University
by the State Government.
4.
This case has a chequered history. To properly appreciate the
controversy involved in this case, it would be essential to set out
the detailed facts, giving rise to these appeals.
A.
FACTUAL MATRIX
5.
A trust namely Chandra Mohan Jha Foundation4 was registered at
Shillong, Meghalaya in the year 2004. The Meghalaya Legislative
Assembly enacted the Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 20095 on
20th July, 2009 to establish and incorporate the CMJ University in
the State with an emphasis on providing high-quality and industryrelevant education in various subjects.6
6.
The Board of Trustees of the CMJ Foundation appointed Shri
Chander Mohan Jha as the Chancellor of the CMJ University on
29th July, 2009, in terms of Section 14(1) of the Act. 7 Thereafter, on
3rd August, 2009, the appellants sent a letter to the Commissioner
and Secretary, Education Department, Government of Meghalaya,
seeking approval of the Visitor for the appointment of Chancellor. It
is pertinent to note that as per Section 13(1) of the Act, the Governor
of Meghalaya was holding the ex-officio position of Visitor of the
CMJ University.8
7.
A reminder was sent to the Visitor vide letter dated 17th November,
2009 and a second reminder dated 09th December, 2009 was sent to
the Officer on Special Duty, Education Department, Government of
Meghalaya, seeking approval of the appointment of the Chancellor.
3
Hereinafter, being referred to as 'State Government'.
4
Hereinafter, being referred to as 'CMJ Foundation'.
5
The Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 (Act No. 4 of 2009). For short 'the Act'.
6
The subjects inter alia include, Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, Technology, Medical Science and
Paramedical, Management, Finance & Accounting, Commerce, Humanities, Language & Communication,
Applied and Performing Arts, Education, Law, Social Sciences and related areas and to provide matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
7
S. 14: The Chancellor: (1) The Sponsor shall appoint a person suitable to be appointed as the
Chancellor of the University subject to the approval of the Visitor.
8
The 'Governor of Meghalaya', hereinafter referred to as 'Visitor.'
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1027
CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others
8.
Since approval for the appointment of the Chancellor was not
forthcoming despite several reminders, a letter dated 1st April, 2010
was sent by the appellants to the State Government asserting that "In
case the approval is not granted by the Visitor by 25th April, 2010, it
would be deemed that the approval of Chancellor has been granted
by the Visitor". However, no response was received to the letter
dated 1st April, 2010 from the Visitor, either approving or refusing
the appointment of Chancellor.
9.
Notwithstanding all this, the State Government accorded sanction
for the establishment of the CMJ University in accordance with
the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission9 vide
notification dated 17th June, 2010. The UGC vide its letter dated
25th November, 2010, intimated that the CMJ University had been
established by an Act of the State Legislature as a 'State Private
University' and was empowered to award degrees under Section
22 of the University Grants Act, 195610 through its main campus,
after approval is accorded by Statutory Bodies and Councils, if so
required.
10. The Visitor sent letters dated 4th April, 2013 and 11th April, 2013, to
the appellants, seeking some information and highlighting that the
appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University was irregular
since the same was never approved by the Visitor. In response
thereto, the appellants submitted their reply, providing the requested
information to the Visitor vide letters dated 9th April, 2013 and 29th
April, 2013.
11. On perusal of the records/information submitted by the appellants,
the Visitor noticed certain serious anomalies and non-conformity
with the State Act, Regulations and Rules. Upon noticing these
anomalies, the Visitor through the Principal Secretary issued a letter
dated 30th April, 2013 under Section 13(3)(b)11 of the Act and issued
the following directions to the CMJ University: -
9
Hereinafter, being referred to as "UGC".
10
For short, 'UGC Act'.
11
13. The Visitor: (3)
(a) .......
b) On the basis of the information received by the Visitor, if he is satisfied that any order, proceeding or
decision taken by any authority of the University is not in conformity with the Act, Regulations or Rules,
he may issue such directions as he may deem fit in the interest of the University which will be binding
to all concerned.
1028
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
"1. The CMJ University shall recall/withdraw all the degrees
awarded so far and publish this fact in national and local
newspapers at their own cost.
2. The CMJ Foundation shall submit a fresh proposal for
the appointment of the Chancellor along with the correct
Biodata of the candidate recommended and supporting
documents.
3. The CMJ University shall frame rules and procedures for
admission into the M. Phil and Ph. D degree programmes,
allocation of supervisors, course work, evaluation,
assessment and other related matters. in accordance with
the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards
of M.Phil/Ph. D degree) Regulation, 2009.
4. No fresh admission of students shall be undertaken by
the CMJ University till compliance of the above instructions
and till the appointment of the Chancellor in accordance
with Section 14(1) of the CMJ University Act 2009. "
12. The CMJ University was mandated to comply with the aforesaid
directions and submit a compliance report to the Visitor by 21st
May, 2013. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 30th April, 2013, the
appellants filed Writ Petition(C) No. 106 of 2013 before the learned
Single Judge of the High Court.
13. Learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition(C) No. 106 of
2013 vide order dated 16th May, 2013, holding the letter dated 30th
April, 2013 to be legally sound and directing that until the controversy
is resolved, new students shall not be granted admission in the CMJ
University. The learned Single Judge observed that in admitting
students for the year commencing from 2010-2011 and onwards, the
CMJ University had acted on its own volition without getting approval
for the appointment of the 'Chancellor'. The relevant observations
from the order dated 16th May, 2013 are reproduced hereinbelow: -
"Section 14(1) of the CMJ University Act, 2009 makes
it obligatory on the part of the University to appoint
Chancellor subject to approval of the Visitor for a period
of five years, which may be extended with prior approval
of the Visitor. The Chancellor will be the head of the
University. By the letter dated 01.04.2010 under Annexure
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1029
CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others
9, issued by the Secretary, CMJ Foundation addressed
to the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Education Department, Shillong seeking for approval of the
appointment of the Chancellor which may be communicated
to them on or before 25th February, 2010 otherwise it
may be assumed that the governor has accorded his
approval for functioning of the University and also the
appointment of the first Chancellor of the university. The
provisions of the CMJ University Act, 2009, does
not support the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that there would be a "deemed
approval" for appointment of the Chancellor if the
Governor fails to communicate before 25th February
2010. The said provision also does not support such
action of the University in complying (sic) with the
principle "deemed approval" for the functioning of
the University and also the appointment of the first
Chancellor of the CMJ University. The correspondence
would go to show that there is no approval accorded
for the appointment of the Chancellor by the authority
concerned. Moreover, there are no materials placed
before this Court by the petitioner according to the
approval of the appointment of the "Chancellor" by
the "Governor" under the Statute. In absence of which,
it may be assumed that there was no approval of the
appointment of the "Chancellor" by the "Governor"."
(emphasis supplied)
14. Aggrieved by the order dated 16th May, 2013 passed by the learned
Single Judge, the appellants preferred a Writ Appeal (SH) No. 16
of 2013 before the Division Bench, which was dismissed vide order
dated 31st May, 2013, while making pertinent observations reproduced
below: -
"7. On plain perusal of Section 13(2) of the CMJ Act of
2009, It is clear that the Governor of Meghalaya (Visitor)
shall have the power to call any paper or information
relating to the affairs of the University and also on the
basis of information received by the Visitor, he may issue
such directions as he may deem fit in the interest of the
1030
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
University which will be binding to all concerned. Therefore,
it is very clear that the Visitor of the CMJ University
(Governor of Meghalaya) can call informations from
the University and after receiving the information, he
can issue directions as he may deem fit.
8. Section 14(1) of the CMJ Act of 2009, clearly provided
that the sponsor shall appoint a person suitable to be
appointed as the Chancellor of the University subject to
the approval of the Visitor, It is the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners that
prior approval of the Visitor is not required for appointing
the appellant/writ petitioner No. 3 as the Chancellor of
the CMJ University. However, it is also clear under
Section 14(1) of the CMJ Act of 2009 that the approval
of the Visitor will be required for the appointment of
Chancellor.
9. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that as of
today, there is no approval of the Visitor to the appointment
of appellant/writ petitioner No. 3 as Chancellor of CMJ
University. As stated above it is the case of the appellants/
writ petitioners in the writ petition that as there was a
considerable delay on the part of the Visitor in conveying
the approval of the appointment of appellant/writ petitioners
No. 3 as Chancellor of CMJ University, there should be
a deemed approval for considering the submission of Mr.
Amit Kumar Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/
writ petitioners, We have given our anxious considerable
to the provisions of CMJ Act of 2009, however, we find
that there is no provision under which if there is a
considerable delay in conveying the approval of the
Visitor to the appointment of Chancellor by the Visitor,
there should be a deemed approval."
(emphasis supplied)
15. In the meantime, on 3rd June, 2013, the State Government issued
a letter to the appellants, seeking compliance with the directions
issued by the Visitor vide letter dated 30th April, 2013, by 10th June,
2013.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1031
CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others
16. The appellants assailed the order dismissing the writ appeal by filing
a Special Leave Petition12 before this Court. During the pendency of
the said special leave petition, the Visitor (Governor of Meghalaya)
issued comprehensive recommendations to the State Government
vide letter dated 12th June, 2013, to consider dissolution of the CMJ
University on the grounds of mismanagement, maladministration,
indiscipline and failure in enforcement of the objectives of the
University, apart from criminal liability. The Visitor indicated in the
aforesaid letter that the CMJ University had committed the following
irregularities of grave nature: -
"(i) The University functioned from 17/10/2010 with the
self-appointed Chancellor without the approval of the
Visitor in terms of Section 14 (1) of the CMJ University
Act, 2009 on the presumption of "deemed approval" of
the Visitor. This is not legally valid, and the position has
been affirmed by the order dated 16th May, 2013 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya which has further been
upheld by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court
of Meghalaya in their order dated 31st May, 2013.
(ii) It awarded B. Ed degree through Distance Mode without
the requisite approval of the regulatory bodies and without
affiliation. The B. Ed degrees awarded by the CMJ University
were held to be invalid in the eye of Law by the order dated
24th May, 2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati.
(iii) The Shillong Engineering and Management College
was de-affiliated by NEHU from academic session 20112012. This College, which was in existence prior to the
sanction for establishment of the CMJ University, cannot
be affiliated with the CMJ University. While the fate of the
students of this College was already uncertain in view
of the said de-affiliation, the College continued to make
admissions by misleading the students that the degrees
will be issued by the CMJ University.
(iv) The University had reported that during 2012-2013 it had
awarded PhD degrees to 434 students and enrolled another
12
SLP (C) No. 19617 of 2013.
1032
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
490 students. These figures, though extraordinarily high,
do not reflect the correct position. Information is available
with us that another 29 students have also received PhD
degrees from the University and more information is coming
on a daily basis. So it is obvious that the actual number
of award of and enrolment for, PhD and other programs
will be much higher than was reported. The University
awarded PhD even in subjects like the, Bodo and Punjabi
languages where the guides/faculty are not easily available.
These constitute gross abuse of the university's power and
violation of the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure
for Awards of M. Phil/ Ph. D Degree) Regulation, 2009.
(v) The University furnished a list of 10 faculty members
with PhD which is inaccurate. One of the faculty members
is only a research scholar at NEHU. The list includes the
Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and other functionaries of the
University as faculty which is quite misleading. In fact, the
University does not have adequate teachers to introduce
courses which it had been doing.
(vi) The University is running several off-campus centres
outside Meghalaya which is not permissible under the
UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards
of Private University) Regulations, 2003 and the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (2005) in the case of Prof.
Yashpal & Anr. Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
(vii) It is offering a distance education programme outside
the boundaries of Meghalaya and outside India. These
actions are in gross violation of UGC Regulations and
guidelines.
(viii) Total students enrolled by CMJ University as per
information submitted by the University in 2010-11:176,
2011-12:469, 2012-13: 2734. All these admissions are
illegal as all its actions are ab initio(sic) void in absence
of a legally appointed Chancellor.
(ix) The University has violated Section 45(3) and Section
46(4) of the CMJ University Act, 2009 by not submitting
the Annual Report and the Annual Accounts/Balance Sheet
and the Audit Report to Visitor.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1033
CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others
(x) Even after the initiation of actions by the Visitor the
University continued to mislead the students and the public
by press statements. It issued a newspaper advertisement
in the Shillong Times on 22nd April, 2013 claiming it has
not yet awarded any PhD degree to any of the students
enrolled from the State of Assam which is false. Again,
it issued advertisements in newspapers on 2nd May and
16th May, 2013 in matters of holding Convocation and
Award of PhD Degree knowing full well that there can be
no Convocation without the legally appointed Chancellor
and that the admissions of the courses and award of the
degrees were illegal.
(xi) The University has violated Section 41(1) of the CMJ
University Act relating to establishment of Endowment
Fund and indulged in cheating by withdrawing the deposit
of Rs.210 lakhs within days of making the deposit.
(xii) The University repeatedly acted in contravention of
Section 52 of the CMJ University Act 2009 in respect
of maintenance. of standards and other related matters
applicable to private universities."
17. This Court took cognizance of these comprehensive recommendations
issued by the Visitor and disposed of the Special Leave Petition13
vide order dated 13th September, 2013, thereby, directing the State
Government to take appropriate action and pass a speaking order
under Section 48 of the Act, after giving due notice and opportunity
of hearing to the appellants, within a period of three months from
the date of the order.
18. In compliance with the order dated 13th September, 2013 passed
by this Court, the State Government issued a show cause notice
dated 12th November, 2013 and another supplementary show cause
notice dated 24th January, 2014 to the appellants, who submitted
their detailed replies to the aforesaid show cause notices on 25th
November, 2013 and 4th February, 2014 respectively.
19. The State Government found the replies submitted by the appellants
to be untenable with the conclusion that the allegations levelled in
13
Ibid.
1034
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the show cause notices were not satisfactorily explained by the
appellants and that there existed insurmountable evidence as to
mismanagement, maladministration, indiscipline, fraudulent intent and
failure in the accomplishment of the objectives of the University which
was too overwhelming. Consequently, by exercising powers under
Section 48(2) of the Act, the State Government issued an order on
31st March 2014, dissolving the CMJ University with immediate effect.
20. Being aggrieved with the dissolution of the CMJ University, the
appellants herein filed a Writ Petition(C) No. 177 of 2014 before the
High Court, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide
order dated 16th July, 2015, and the order of dissolution dated 31st
March, 2014 along with the show cause notices dated 12th November,
2013 and 24th January, 2014 were quashed and set aside. The
learned Single Judge observed that the State failed to comply with
the fundamental procedural requirements as provided under Section
48 of the Act, i.e., the principles of natural justice and the obligation
of the administrative authorities to act fairly.
21. The learned Single Judge, further, directed the State Government
to take steps strictly compliant with the provisions of the CMJ
University Act, 2009, the Meghalaya Private Universities (Regulation
of Establishment and Maintenance of Standards) Act, 2012, principles
of natural justice and the obligation of the administrative authorities
to act fairly in the interest of justice in compliance of the judgment
and order dated 13th September, 2013, vide which this Court directed
the State authorities to pass a speaking order under Section 48 of
the Act.
22. Aggrieved, the State Government filed intra-court Writ Appeal No.
14 of 2017 before the Division Bench of the High Court assailing
the order dated 16th July, 2015. The Division Bench vide an interim
order dated 12th June, 2017, stayed the operation of the order dated
16th July, 2015 passed by the Single Bench and directed that the
admission and award of degrees by the CMJ University shall remain
subject to the final judgment to be passed in appeal.
23. Being aggrieved of this interim order dated 12th June, 2017, the CMJ
University approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition,14
14
SLP (C) No. 21890 of 2017.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1035
CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others
wherein this Court vide order dated 4th September, 2017 granted
interim stay on the effect and operation of the interim order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court. This Court vide another
order dated 13th August, 2018 passed in the aforesaid special leave
petition, extended the stay, and the writ appeal pending before the
High Court of Meghalaya was transferred to the Gauhati High Court
with the consent of both the parties for the reason that Meghalaya
High Court had only two Judges at that time, one of whom had
recused from hearing the case.
24. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 13th August, 2018, the Writ Appeal
No. 14 of 2017 (in the High Court of Meghalaya) was renumbered
as Writ Appeal No. 266 of 2018 (in the High Court of Gauhati)
and was taken up for consideration by the Division Bench of the
Gauhati High Court, which disposed of the same vide order dated
5th November, 2019, quashing the order dated 16th July, 2015 passed
in Writ Petition(C) No. 177 of 2014 on the ground that the learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Meghalaya had not recorded
the contentions of the appellants herein. The Division Bench of the
Gauhati High Court remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Meghalaya for fresh adjudication on merits,
observing that the interim order passed by this Court would continue.
25. Aggrieved by the remand order, the appellants filed Civil Appeal
No. 3310 of 202015 before this Court. This Court vide order dated
28th September, 2020, allowed the appeal and set aside the remand
order, while transferring the writ appeal from the Division Bench of
the Gauhati High Court back to the Division Bench of the High Court
of Meghalaya for fresh consideration and disposal on merits.
26. Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017 was allowed by the Division Bench of
the High Court of Meghalaya vide judgment and order dated 6th
May, 2021 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Single
Judge to take appropriate decision regarding the validity of the order
dissolving the CMJ University on merits preferably within a period
of six months. The said judgment dated 6th May, 2021 is assailed
in the present appeal i.e., Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2024, filed by
the appellants.
15
Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10941 of 2020.
1036
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
27. Subsequently, the State Government also filed an appeal i.e., Civil
Appeal No. 9695 of 2024, challenging the Division Bench judgment
dated 6th May, 2021, only to the limited extent of the matter being
remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication.
28. Vide order dated 1st June, 2021, this Court directed the parties to
maintain status quo, as it existed on that date. Leave was granted
on 20th August, 2024.
B.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
29. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
advanced the following pertinent submissions for assailing the
impugned order: -
(a) That the University came into existence pursuant to the
enactment of the CMJ University Act, 2009 by the Meghalaya
Legislative Assembly, with an emphasis on providing high-quality
and industry-relevant education in various fields. A huge amount
of money has been invested in creating infrastructure spanning
more than 1.5 lakh square feet built-up area, state-of-the-art
laboratory, a library and modern classrooms at the main campus
of the University for imparting quality education to the students.
(b) That the CMJ University was granted UGC recognition vide
letter dated 25th November, 2010 as a State Private University
and was empowered to award degrees as specified by the UGC
under Section 22 of the UGC Act, through its main campus.
(c)
That under Section 14(1) of the Act, the Sponsor is entitled to
appoint a suitable person as the Chancellor of the University
subject to the approval of the Visitor. Therefore, on a bare
reading of this sub-section, it is clear that prior approval is not
required for the appointment of a Chancellor. He further urged
that an appointment subject to approval is valid so long it is
not disapproved. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the
decisions of this Court in (i) U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
& Anr v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Ltd. & Anr16; (ii)
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh & Anr17,
16
1995 Supp (3) SCC 456.
17
(2003) 4 SCC 239.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
1037
CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others
and (iii) Ashok Kumar Das & Ors v. University of Burdwan
& Ors18.
(d) The trustees of CMJ Foundation as early as on 29th July,
2009 had adopted a valid resolution appointing Shri Chander
Mohan Jha as the Chancellor of the CMJ University in terms
of Section 14(1) of the Act. Various representations dated
29th July, 2009, 3rd August, 2009 and 6th October, 2009 were
addressed to the Visitor, seeking approval of the appointment of
the Chancellor of the CMJ University. Thereafter, two reminders
dated 17th November, 2009 and 9th December, 2009 were also
sent to the Visitor seeking approval. However, none of these
communications received any response whatsoever from the
Visitor.
(e) That the appellants sent a letter dated 1st April, 2010, to the State
Government which clearly specified that 'if the Visitor (Governor
of Meghalaya) failed to accord his approval, it would be assumed
as a 'deemed approval' for the functioning of the University and
the appointment of the Chancellor of the University.' He submitted
that in view of this letter and other correspondences shared with
the State Government, the CMJ University rightfully assumed
'deemed approval' to the appointment of the Chancellor.
Consequently, admissions were given to the students, and the
courses concerned commenced. Students who had completed
their respective courses commencing from the academic year
2010-2011 and other students who continued to study in the
CMJ University were granted degrees in accordance with the
mandate of the Act and the UGC recommendations.
(f)
That Section 26 of the Act clearly stipulates that no act or
proceeding of any authority of the University shall be deemed
invalid merely on the reason of the existence of any vacancy
of post or defect in the constitution of the authority.
(g) That the respondents did not comply with the directions given
by this Court vide order dated 13th September, 2013 passed in
Special Leave Petition,19 whereby, the State Government was
18
(2010) 3 SCC 616.
19
SLP(C) No. 19617 of 2013.
1038
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
required to proceed strictly in accordance with the Act, after
complying with the mandate of Section 48 of the Act and not
mere paper compliance. To buttress this submission, learned
senior counsel drew our attention to the following observations
made by this Court in the order dated 13th September, 2013:-
"In view of the above, we feel that ends of justice
will be served by directing the State Government to
take appropriate action under Section 48 of the 2009
Act after giving notice and reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners.
The special leave petitions are accordingly disposed
of with direction that within three months from today
the State Government shall, after giving an opportunity
to the petitioners to show cause against the action
proposed to be taken, pass a speaking order under
Section 48 of the 2009 Act."
(h) As per learned senior counsel, the State Government failed
to comply with the mandatory requirements as provided under
Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 48 of the Act, which deal
with the procedure of dissolution of the University.