Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1437 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURTAppointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University - requirement of prior approval or not - scope of judicial review - HELD THAT:- Under Section 14(1) of the said Act of 2009, sponsor shall appoint a person suitable to be appointed as the Chancellor of the University subject to the approval of the Visitor. Therefore, prior approval is not required for appointment of the Chancellor. There is a clear distinction between "prior approval" and "subject to approval". In the case of appointment subject to approval, appointment is good so long it is not disapproved. The appellant is right in contending that the authorities cannot be allowed to take undue advantage of their own default in failure to act in accordance with law and initiate fresh proceedings. The appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University does not require the prior approval but subject to approval of the Visitor and the appointment of the Chancellor is good so long it is not disapproved. Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the decision-making process. The Apex Court in Narayan Govind Gavate & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors [1976 (10) TMI 146 - SUPREME COURT] held that it is also clear that, even a technically correct recital in an order or notification stating that the conditions precedent to the exercise of a power have been fulfilled may not debar the Court in a given case from considering the question whether, in fact, those conditions have been fulfilled. It is now well settled that judicial review of the administrative action/quasi judicial orders passed by the Govt. is limited only to correcting the errors of law or non compliance with/breach of fundamental procedural requirements which may lead to manifest injustice - When the conclusions of the authority are based on evidence, the same cannot be re-appreciated by the court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. The court does not exercise the powers of an appellate court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. It is only in cases where either findings recorded by the administrative/quasi judicial authority are based on no evidence or are so perverse that no reasonable person would have reached such a conclusion on the basis of the material available that the court would be justified to interfere with the decision. The scope of judicial review is limited to the decision making process and not to the decision itself, even if the same appears to be erroneous. This Court is of the considered view that there was non-compliance with or breach of the fundamental procedural requirements as provided under Section 48 of the said Act of 2009 as well as principles of natural justice and the concept of the obligation of the administrative authorities to act fairly in issuing the show cause notices dated 12.11.2013 and 24.01.2014 and passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2014 which would lead to many facets injustice. Thus, the impugned order dated 31.03.2014 and the show cause notices dated 11.12.2013 and 24.01.2014 are hereby quashed and set aside. Petition allowed.
|