Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the State of Meghalaya's 2014 order dissolving CMJ University. It held that the Chancellor's appointment without the Visitor's approval under Section 14(1) of the Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 was non est, since 'subject to approval' means conditional on approval and the Act contains no deemed approval; that the dissolution complied with Section 48 and the Court's 2013 directions; and that the High Court Division Bench, having upheld the procedure, wrongly remanded the matter to the Single Judge.
Issues
- Whether the appointment of the Chancellor of CMJ University by the Sponsor, never approved by the Visitor, was valid under Section 14(1) of the Act, and whether the Visitor's silence amounted to deemed approval.
- Whether the dissolution order dated 31 March 2014 was passed in compliance with Section 48 of the Act and with the Supreme Court's order dated 13 September 2013 in SLP(C) No. 19617 of 2013.
- Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the Single Judge for reconsideration on merits after upholding the procedure followed for dissolution.
Provisions considered
- Section 14(1), Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009Read 'subject to the approval of the Visitor' as 'conditional upon' approval, so a Chancellor appointed by the Sponsor holds office validly only once the Visitor approves; as approval was never given and the Act has no deeming provision, the appointment was non est and void ab initio. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 69)
- Section 48, Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009Sub-section (2) requires the State to issue directions on identifying mismanagement and permits winding up if they are not followed, and sub-section (3) requires a show-cause opportunity to the Sponsor. Both were held satisfied by the Visitor's directions, the State's compliance reminder, the two show-cause notices, and the reasoned dissolution order. (¶¶ 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59)
- Section 13(3)(b), Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009Empowers the Visitor to issue binding directions where an action of a University authority is not in conformity with the Act; the Visitor's directions of 30 April 2013 were issued under it, and their non-compliance by the University underpinned the dissolution. (¶¶ 11, 48, 58)
Held
- The words 'subject to' in a statute mean 'conditional upon'; therefore, under Section 14(1), the Sponsor's appointment of a Chancellor is conditional on the Visitor's approval, the Visitor being no mere titular head, and an appointment that is not approved is non est. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44)
- A legal fiction such as deemed approval can be created only by the legislature; courts cannot create one by interpretation where the statute provides none. The Sponsor's unilateral notice that the Visitor's silence would be treated as deemed approval was untenable, as the Act contains no such provision. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43)
- Where a statute requires approval of a higher authority, the order cannot take effect until approved and remains a dead letter without it; the Chancellor's appointment was rightly held invalid. (¶¶ 45, 46)
- Section 48(2) was complied with because the Visitor had issued specific directions requiring a compliance report, the State Government issued a reminder seeking compliance, and the University, instead of complying, challenged the directions unsuccessfully; the State then issued two show-cause notices, considered the replies, and passed a detailed reasoned dissolution order, satisfying Section 48 and the Supreme Court's direction to pass a speaking order after hearing. (¶¶ 55, 56, 57, 58, 59)
- Remand cannot be ordered as a matter of course, and an appellate court should endeavour to decide the matter on merits. Since judicial review is directed at the decision-making process, once the Division Bench upheld the procedure followed in dissolving the University and nothing remained to be decided, remanding the matter to the Single Judge on merits was an empty formality and legally untenable. (¶¶ 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68)
Result
Appeal of the CMJ Foundation dismissed; State's appeal allowed and the Division Bench's remand to the Single Judge set aside; dissolution order dated 31 March 2014 affirmed, with liberty to the State Government to take consequential measures; no costs.