BHARAT RATNA INDIRA GANDHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & OTHERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 1087 · Decided: 28-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 3 S.C.R. 1087 
BHARAT RATNA INDIRA GANDHI COLLEGE OF 
ENGINEERING & OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2704 of 2011} 
MARCH 28, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
A' 
B 
Judgment/Order - Suo motu orders - Orders passed by 
Court on its own motion - Sustainability of - Held: Such suo C 
motu orders, without even a petition on which they are passed, 
are ordinarily not justified nor sustainable - Ordinarily, there 
must be a petition on which the court can pass an order- On 
facts, the High Court was not justified in taking suo motu action 
on the basis of some information which was not disclosed in 
D 
the impugned order - Judges must exercise restraint in such 
matters - By the impugned order, the High Court directed that 
if the Colleges failed to fill in the post of Principal within the 
stipulated period, the University would issue orders prohibiting 
admissions in the concerned Colleges .;.. There is no statutory E 
rule that in the absence of a permanent Principal, admissions 
in the Colleges cannot be made - Thus, the High Court 
indulged in judicial legislation, which is not ordinarily 
permissible - Also, none of the Colleges were made parties 
before the High Court - There was violation of the principles 
F 
of natural justice - Order of the High set aside. 
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Anr. vs. 
Chander Hassand Anr. (2008} 1 SCC 683 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2oot>/ 1 sec 683 
~elied on. 
Para 12 · 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2704 of 2011 ect. 
1087 
G 
H 
1088 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 3.12.2008 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition 
No. 2216 of 2006. 
WITH 
B C.A. Nos. 2705-2716, 2776, 2717-2725, 2727, 2728, 2731-
2736, 2738-2744 & 2746-2769 cf 2011. 
Jayant Bhushan, U. Hazarika, S.B, Sanyal, Ravindra K. 
Adsure, G. Ananda Selvam (for Gaurav Agrawal), Arun R. 
c Pednekar (for Chandan Ramamurthi), Gopal Balwant Sathe, 
Sridhar Y. Chitale, Abhijat P. Medh, Kiran Singh, Sarang 
Aradhye, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Brij Kishor Sah, Prashant B., A1.1it 
Singh, P.V. Vaidya, Ketki P. Vaidya, Manish Pitale, Wasi 
Haider (for Chander Shekhar Ashri), Nikhil Nayyar, Ravir,,.hd 
D Keshavrao Adsure, Sanjay Sen, Rana S. ·Biswas Hemant 
Singh, Amitab Narendra (for Sharmila Upadhyay), Vikas Mehta, 
Jitendra Kumar, Dr. R.R. Deshpande, Ujwala R. Deshpande, 
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sanjay Kharde (for Asha Gopalan 
Nair), Vijay Kumar (for Vishwajit Singh), Aniruddha P. Mayee, 
E Charudatta Mahendrakar, Ruche A. Mayee, Satyajit A. Desai, 
Somanath Padhan (for Anagha S. Desai) for the appearing 
parties. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. 
ORDER 
G 
Heard loamed counsel for the parties. 
H 
These Appeals have been filed against the impugned 
judgment and order dated 03rd December, 2008 passed by 
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in 
Writ Petition No.2216 of 2006. 
BHARAT RATNA INDIRA GANDHI COLLEGE OF 
1089 
11 
ENGINEERING v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
.·. 
At the very outset we may note that in fact there was no 
A 
petition before the High Court on which the impugned order was 
Pi:lssed. The High Court took suo motu action on the basis of 
· some information which has not been disclosed in the 
·impugned order. The cause title in the impugned judgment 
re~s: 
B 
. 
. 
"Cc· •rt on its own motion vs, State of Maharashtra through 
its Secretary, Education Department.· 
·. None of the ·colleges in respect of wh.ich the impugned 
order was passed were made respondents, nor was notice 
C · 
issued to ttiem, nor were they tieard by the High Court. . 
To say the least, .this was a strange procedure adopted by 
the High Court. 
· 
... 
In our opinion, such suo motu orders; without even a D 
petition: on which ttiey are passed, are ordinarily not justified 
· nor sustainable. Ordinarily, there must be a petition on which 
the Court can pass an order. In our opinion, the High Court was 
not justified in taking suo motu action in this case. Judges must · E 
exercise restraint in such matters. 
Moreover, we have perused the impugned order and we 
are of the opinion that the directions contained in paragraph 7 
of the impugned judgment were wholly unwarranted as they 
amount to judicial legislation. 
F 
It appears that many private unaided Degree Colleges in 
Maharashtra did not have permanent Principal

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.