DR. UMRAO SINGH CHOUDHARY versus STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 842 · Decided: 02-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR. UMRAO SINGH CHOUDHARY 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. 
MAY 2, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India : Articles 136, 22!r--Notiftcation under s.52 of 
Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973-Vice- Chancellor to va-
cate office-Heid, when State Government was satisfied as contemplated by 
C s.52 court would not be justified in inteifering in exercise of power under Article 
136 or Article 226. 
Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 : Sections 13, 14, 
52-Vice-Chance/loi-Notiftcation under s.52 providing that Vice-Chancellor 
ceased to be operative with ifnmediate effect-Held, State Govemnzent was 
D justified in issuing notification as it was satisfied that a situation had a1isen 
in which administration of University could not be carried on in accordance 
with prnvi.\·ions of Adhiniyan1, 
Administrative Law : Judicial reviev.-Notification under s.52 of M.P. 
E Act No. 22 of 197J-Vice-Chancellor to vacate office-Held, action under s.52 
statutory and subject to judicial review as envisaged by Articles 136 or 226 of 
the Constitution-However, Court would not sit in appeal over opinion of 
State Government. 
Natural Justice : Vice-Chancel/oi-Notiftcation under s.52 of M.P. Act 
F 
22 of 197J-Held, s.52 by necessary implication excludes application of 
principles of natural justice. 
The petitioner was appointed as Vice-Chancellor under s.13 of Mad-
hya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 on 5.9.1992. The Governor, 
issued a notification under s.51 of the Adhiniyam whereby the petitioner 
G ceased to be the Vice-Chancellor w.e.f. 21.1.1994. The petitioner filed a writ 
petition before the High Court contending that the notification besides 
being ma/a fide, illegal and arbitrary, was violative of principles of natural 
justice as the action of the Governor was administrative and the petitioner 
was not afforded any opportunity. The High tourt dismissed the writ 
H petition. The petitioner filed the special leave petition. 
842 
DR. UMRAO SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. 
843 
Dismissing the special leave petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. The State Government was justified in issuing the 
notification under s.52(1) of Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Ad-
hiniyam, 1973. [847-C] 
A 
2.1. The condition precedent to exercise the power under s.52(1) is B 
the satisfaction as contemplated thereby of the State Guvennnent, i.e. the 
Governor with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and record-
ing of the reasons as mentioned therein. In the instant case, the State 
Government was satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the ad-
ministration of the University could not be carried on in accordance with 
the provisions of the Adhiniyam and for better administration and to 
prevent detriment to the interest of the University, it issued the Notifica-
tion 'for the reasons mentioned therein' and directed that ss.13 and 14 of 
the Adhiniyam would not apply. [pp. 846-F-H; 847-A] 
c 
2.2. The action under s.52 is only statutory action, but subject to D 
judicial review. However, the court would not sit in appeal over the opinion 
of the State Government. When, in the facts of the case, the State Govern-
ment was satisfied of the situation contemplated by s.52(1), though the 
court may differ from the formation of that satisfaction, if questioned in an 
appeal, and may come to a different conclnsion, it would not be justified to 
differ from the conclusion in exercise of the power of judicial review under E 
Article 136 or under Article 226 of the Constitution. [p. 846-F; 847-A-B) 
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, [1994) 3 S.C.C. 1, followed. 
3. The principle of natural justice does not supplant the law, but 
supplement the law. Its application may be excluded, either expressly or 
by necessary implication. Section 52, in juxta-position to s.14, by necessary 
implication, excludes the application of the principles of natural justice. 
In view of this statutory animation it cannot be said that the petitioner is 
entitled to the notice and an opportunity before taking action under 
s.52(1). [846-B-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 6800 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.94 of the Madhay Pradesh 
F 
G 
High Court in M.P. No. 125 of 1994. 
H 
844 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
A.K. Goel and Mrs. Sheela Goel for the Petitioner. 
Satish K. Agnihotri for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
The pri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.