BISHESHWAR DAYAL SINHA versus UNIVERSITY OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 879 · Decided: 24-04-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
78.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
879 
BISHESHW AR DAY AL SINHA 
v. 
UNIVERSITY OF BlHAR & ORS. 
JP. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HiDAYAT-
ULLAH, K. C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYAN· 
GAR, JJ.) 
Bihar Staie Universities (Patna, University of Bihar, Bha-
ga!pur and Ranchi Act). 1960 (Bihar 14 of 1960), ss. 2(d), 4(10) 
~O(d) and (e), 60(a)(ii)-Amendment Act, 1961 
(Bihar II of 
1962), s. 35, 
Statutes 2(4), 3(1)-0rder by Vice-Chancellor re-
constituting Governing Bodu of alftliated college-Validity. 
The Vice-Chancellor of the Bihar University by an order 
dated 
January 13, 
1963 directed the reconstitution of the 
Governing Body of the Rajendra College, Chapra, which was 
a public institution founded by public charities and was affi-
liat<>d to the University under s. 2(d) of the Bihar State Uni-
versities (Patna, University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) 
Act, 1960, removed the appellant, who was the Secretary of 
the College and nominated certain persons as members of the 
Governing Body. The Act of 1960 was amended by Act II of 
1962 and s. 35 of the Amending Act provided for the dissolu-
tion of the Senate Syndicate and Acadt>mic Council functioning 
prior to it and for the constitution of new bodies in their place 
and authorised the Vice-Chancellor pending such reconstitu-
tion to exercise their powers for a period not exceeding, nine 
months. In exercise of the power conferred by this section the 
Vice-Chancellor framed new statutes under which he purport-
ed to pass the impugned arders. Clause 2(4) of the new statutes 
canferred an the Vice-Chancellor the power to amend or revise 
the canstitutian of the affiliated calleges and cl. 3(1) empowered 
the syndicate either on its own !notion or at the instance of 
the Vice-Chancellor ta dissolve; and order constitutian of 
Governing Badies. It further empowered the cancellation af 
grants-in-aid ta the colleges concerned. The proviso to. cl. 3(1) 
required that reasonable 
opportunity must be given to the 
Governing Body before any action was taken under the clause. 
The appellant moved the Patna High Court for a writ quashing 
JJie impugned order and the statutes on which it was made. 
His case was that the relevant statutes were ultra vires and as 
such the order was unsustainable. The High Court held that 
the impugned order could not be justified under cl. 3(1) as the 
proviso had not bt>en complied with but that the order was 
valid under cl. 2(4). It further held that the impugned statutes 
could be justified by s. 60(a)(ii) which was introduced by Act 
II of 1962, empowering the Vice-Chancellor to make adaptations 
or modification in the pre-existing statutes. 
Held: The Bihar State University Act of 1960 made a clear 
distinction between two categories of collegiate 
institutions, 
(1) those owned and maintained by the university and (2) others 
o.dmitted or affiliated to the University, as was apparent from 
ss. 4(10) and 30(d) and (e) of the Act. While the University 
had undoubtedly the power to disaffiliate an institution belong-
ing to the second category on its failure to conform to reason-
able and legitimate conditions under the Act subject to which 
the affiliation was granted, it had no power to dissolve and 
1961 
.4.prif 81 
196, 
BW.W.,..r Dayal 
Sinlia 
v. 
Univeraitg o/ 
Bi/oar and Othera 
880 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964J 
constitute the Governing Body of such an institution itself. 
Clause 2(4) of the Statutes was inconsistent with s. 30(d) of 
the Act and must be held to be invalid. The impugned order· 
passed under it therefore must be invalid and inoperative. 
Clause 3(1) of the statute in so far as it proceeded on the· 
basis that the syndicate could itself dissolve the Governing: 
Body and order its reconstitution suffered from the same in-· 
firmity as cl. 2(4). That clause in so far at it gave the syndicate· 
the power to dissolve and reconstitute the Governing Body 
and cancel grants-in-aid to an affiliated college for non-com-
pliance with its direction issued in that behalf must, conse-· 
quently, be held to be invalid. 
The power conferred by s. 60(ii) of the Act must be rea:d' 
in the Jig.ht of the provisions of s. 30(d) in regard to affiliated 
colleges and since statute 2(4) was itself invalid, the section 
could not justify the impugned order. 
In resolving disputes between affiliated colleges and the-
university, attempt should be made to respect the autonomy 
of the colleges and reconcile the same wi

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