THE GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD versus KRISHNA RANGANATH MUDHOLKAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 21-09-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
Sobhraf Odharmal 
v. 
State of Rajasthan 
Shah, J. 
1962 
September 21. 
112 SUPRE,ME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
are set out in the order dated May 3/4, 1962 were 
lawfully cancelled. The objectors had since cancella-
tion of their permits no fundamental right which 
could be infringed by the State Government plying its 
vehicles with or without permits issued by the Regional 
Transport Authority under s.42( 1) of the Motor 
Vehicles Act. 
The appeal and the writ petition therefore fail 
and are dismissed with costs. There will be one 
hearing· fee. 
Appeal and writ petition dismissed. 
THE GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD 
v. 
KRISHNA RANGANATH MUDHOLKAR 
AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA c. ]., jAFER IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, 
K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SH.AH AND 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, lJ.) 
University Education-F·ixation of exclusive ""'4ium of 
mstruction-Legislative Competence of State Legislature-Consti-
tution of India, Art. 254 (1), 
Seventh Schedule, List I, 
Entry 66, List II, Entry lr---Gujarat Univer8ity Act, 1949 
(Bom. 56 of 1949) as amended by Act 4 of 1961, 88. 4, 18, 20, 
22, 38A-Univer8ity Statutes, 207, 208 209. 
The second respondent joined the First Year Arts Class 
of the St. Xavier's College, affiliated to the Gujarat University, 
where instruction was imparted through the medium of English 
and after successfully completing that course sought admission 
to the cla~ses preparing for the Intermediate Arts Examin-
ation of the University through the medium of English. 
The 
Principal of the college informed him that in view of the 
provisions of the Gujarat University Act, 1949, and statutes 267, 
208 and 209 framed by the Senate of the University, as amended 
in J 961, . he could not be admitted without the "11\Clion of the 
University The first respondent (father of the second respondent) 
1\ 
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
113 
.. 
moved the Vice-Chancellor but sanction was refused. The 
respondents then moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the 
Constitution for v.rrits requiring the university and the Principal 
of the College not to enforce the provisions of ss. 4 (27) 18 (1) 
(XIV) and 38 A of the Gujarat University Act and Statutes 207, 
208, 209 and that Court holding in favour of the respondents 
issued the writs prayed for. 
The State and the University filed 
separate appeals to this Court. It was contended on behalf of 
the University that s. 4 of the Act conferred power on the 
University to impose Gujarati or Hindi as the exclusive medium 
of instruction and 
examination, and that 
the impugned 
provisions were valid. The questions for deternlination were, 
(1) whether the Gujarat University had the power under the 
Act to prescribe Gujarati or Hindi or both as exclusive 1nedium 
or media of instruction and examination, (2) whether legislation 
authorising the University to impose such 1nedia was constituti-
onally valid in view of Entry 66 of list I of the Seventh Schedule 
to the Constitution. 
Held, 
(Per Sinha, C. J., Imam, Wanchoo, Shah and 
Ayyangar,JJ.), that neither under the Gujarat Uniyersity Act,' 
1949, as originally enacted nor as amended by Act 4of1961, 
was power conferred on the University to impose Gujarati or 
Hindi or both as exclusive medium or media of instruction or 
examination and since no power \Vas conferred on the University 
the Senate could exercise no such power. 
Clause (27) of s. 4 of the Act, which alone expressly dealt 
with the subject of medium of instruction, properly construed, 
did not indicate that the Legislature was therein indirectly 
dealing with the subject of prescribing an exclusive medium of 
instruction. 
From the use of the word "Promote" read in the 
context of the indefinite article "a", it was clear that the Univer. 
sity was not empowered to impose Gujarati or Hindi as exclusive 
medium of instruction and examination. 
Use of the definite 
article "the" in the proviso in relation to English as the medium 
of instruction supported this view. 
Since cl. (27) was not intended to authorise the imposition 
of Gujarati or Hindi or both as exclusive medium or media, 
cl. (28) of s. 4 could not also be held to do so. 
Nor did ss. 18, 
20, 22 or any other section of the Act confer that authority. 
J-\ corporation has ordinarily an implied power to carry 
out its objects; but that rule could not by itself, in the absence 
of express provisions in the Act, authorise the University to · 
impose an oxclusive 1nedium of instn1ction. 
The letter dated Angu

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