Shivashankar Bhat, J.
1. W.P. N9. 12587/85 is by Bharatiya Veterinary Educational Society and three others (all of them are collectively referred hereinafter as 'the society' or as society and its co petitioners). W.P. Nos. 14696 and 18238/1985 are by 102 petitioners, who are referred as the 'students'. The first two respondents are common in these writ petitions. In the writ petitions filed by the students, the society is imp leaded as the 3rd respondent and the College in question is the 4th respondent..
2. The society seeks the quashing of S. 6A of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963 (a State enactment - referred hereinafter as the Act'), by declaring the said section as unconstitutional. In the writ petitions filed- by the students, they seek a direction to the State Government to initiate an appropriate action against the society and the college., by invoking S. 27-A of the 'Karnataka Societies Registration Act, in the light of S. 6-A of the Act. They also seek provisions to be made to protect the interest of these and other similarly situated students: alter ' natively, they seek a direction to treat them as students of the 2nd respondent University for the purpose of their educational pursuits leading to the award of B.V.Sc. Degree/A.P.M. Degree, etc.
3. The society states that in the year 1983 it established a veterinary college called 'Bharatiya Veterinary College' and has been running it ever since (as on the date of writ petition) with a, unique mission of transferring veterinary technology to the aspiring motivated and eligible candidates. It asserts as having highly qualified teaching staff and that the students were given both theoretical and practical training in veterinary sciences., It sought recognition from the second respondent University. The University replied that, in the absence of a specific provision in the University of Agricultural Sciences Act. 1963, question of giving affiliation to any private college or recognizing the degree offered by the petitioner-college, was not within the purview of the University. Society also asserts as having sought affiliation from the, Ban galore University; it also addressed a letter to the University Grants Commission, which advised the college to seek affiliation with an Indian University, before the college could be considered for grant of deemed University status under S. 3 of the University Grants Commission Act. This was in May, 1985. The society also refers to a letter dt. 197-1984 addressed by the President of Karnataka Veterinary Council, to the petitioner -college appreciating the efforts of the college to establish veterinary institution; ,the President of the said Council also pointed out that he was not in a position to help the society in the direction of recognizing its institution by the Government. The society avers that, in view of the procedural difficulties experienced by it in getting the affiliation, it -got its college affiliated to and recognized by an America University, called 'New Port University '. It is stated, that the said American ,University had accepted to give degrees conferred by it to the students of the petitioner-college.
4. On 10th June, 1985 the Governor promulgated an Ordinance amending the Act. 'This was replaced by University of Agricultural Sciences (Amendment) Act, 1985 with effect from 10th June, 1985. Section '6A. Affiliation or admission to privileges etc.--
No educational institution. situate within the State of Karnataka imparting education of the type specified in See. 4 or for the, purposes specified therein shall be associated in any way with or be admitted to any privileges of and affiliated to any other University outside the State of Karnataka and any such affiliation granted by any such other University to any such institution within; the State of Karnataka prior to the' commencement of the University of Agricultural Sciences (Amendment) Act, 1985 shall be deemed to be withdrawn from the date of such commencement.'
5. The society attacks this provision, as offending the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19(l)(g) as also Art. 14. Society' apprehends that this provision caused substantial confusion in the public and particularly amongst the parents of eligible candidates and the amendment was brought in was directed against it.
6. The contentions urged were : -
(1) The amendment Act which has been made retrospective results in denying the rights of the petitioners to get the college affiliated to any university of their choice The amendment seeks to withdraw the affiliation and privileges gratitude by Universities outside the State of Karnataka The restriction imposed results in total deprivation of the rights to establish an educational institution for imparting education in veterinary sciences, and hence unreasonable.
(2) There are several other institutions in Karnataka imparting education in other .courses like Arts, Science, Business -Management, which have been affiliated to Universities outside Karnataka. Therefore, it is an act of discrimination against the petitioner-college, not allowing a similar right to get affiliated to an outside University.
(3) The fundamental right to impart education inherent in Art., 19(1)(a) and (g) is taken away by S. 6A.
(4) Section 6A has extra-territorial operation and hence the legislature had no competence to enact it.
7. A distinctive feature of this case is that the relief's sought by the petitioner-society were opposed not only by the State Government and the University of Agricultural, Science, but also many of its students who are the petitioners in the connected writ petitions. It was pointed out by the State and the University that the field governing the education in veterinary science and agricultural science, are covered by the Act, which contemplates an exclusive power in the 2nd respondent University to impart education in veterinary science (as also in some other subjects). No private individual or organization is permitted to establish and run such an institution and there is no provision in the Act providing for affiliation' of such an institution with the University. The State is competent to legislate, prohibiting an institution in the State seeking affiliation to an University outside the State. Question of extra-territoriality does not arise because, impact of the Lawson the institution situated within the State. It is open to any one to establish and run an educational institution; but none has a fundamental right to seek affiliation or recognition by the University or the State Government. The legislature is competent to legislate vesting exclusive privilege with its instrumentality, like, the University, to establish and impart education in subjects like veterinary and agricultural sciences.
8. The students in their writ petitions have stated that they joined the college run by the society based on newspaper publications caused by the society that the college was affiliated to an accredited University in U.S.A. and the course of study was leading to the award of B.V.Sc. degree. The society, is alleged to have issued pamphlets, prospectus and calendars persuading the people and the petitioners to believe to the aforesaid effect, wherein the society refers to New Port: University as the one to which it got affiliation The prospectus produced by the students as an annexure to their writ petitions, says that the students of this college may affix B.V.Sc. (Missouri-U.S.A.) after successful completion of the course offered by the society. One such prospectus states that the college was affiliated to the International University, Missouri, U.S.A. Another prospectus states that the New Port University, California, would be conferring the degrees. These prospectus states that these degrees have legal validity and that 'they are granted under the Charter of Degree granting authorities according to the legal statutes governing them, in U.S.A., Mexico, India, Japan etc.' In the objection statement filed on behalf of the society and the college to the writ petitions of the students, the society has tried to sustain these averments in the prospectus, by referring to a letter dated 31-12-1982 allegedly written by the Chancellor of the said International University. Subsequently in 1984, the society states, it obtained affiliation from New Port University also.
9. Students have further asserted that in addition to the tuition fee and cash deposits, each of them had to pay a laboratory fees of Rs. 10,000,1-. By way of voluntary contribution, each one of them paid, it is asserted, a sum of Rs. 21,000/- or Rs. 25,000/as capitation fee. The Karnataka Veterinary Council, having suspected about the society and its college, addressed a letter to the American Veterinary Association, and received a reply dated 7-9-1984. The said reply pointed out that there was no institution called the 'New Port University, California' listed as an accredited American University. The requirement of an appropriate licence from -the Government of the relevant State to practice veterinary medicine was also stated in the said letter. To obtain such a license, in U.S.A. a series of examinations had to be passed. The All India Students Union, issued a publication to notify the public of the Big Racket' engineered by a self-styled Executive Director of New Port University at Ban galore. This publication, issued to alert the Indian public, highlighted the misleading and false statements being made by the said alleged California University. It quoted the information received from the California State - Secondary Education Commission. Government of California, State of U.S.A. -pointing out that the New Port University had been 'unaccredited'. In spite of these. it is seen from Annexure-G, filed by the students. the society advertised again. stating, iliac a few seats were available for August, 1985 Session of B.V.Sc., and A.P.M., five years degree course. To stress its importance, the advertisement stated that 'the seats will be allotted on first come first served basis etc .. . It further states that 'the college has been successfully running for the past three years... .
10. The students were told through various prospectus etc., that the degrees conferred by the society and the college, are being considered by the Government for eligibility to Government service. This was found to be totally false. On this aspect, the society has asserted in para-14 of its statement of objections that, the assertion of students on this question is not correct and relies on Annexure R-4. But Annexure R-4 belies the statement of the society. The letter of the Ministry of Education, Government of India (Annexure R-4) says that the said Ministry 'do not recognize any institution which conducts educational programme However, only terminal qualification for the purpose of recruitment to this sciences under the Central Government have been considered by the Ministry. It said - 'you are advised to approach the State Government in the matter'. This letter is dt. 31-1-1985.
11. The students filed the writ petitions alleging that they were victims of misrepresentation made by the society and the college. Since, S. 6-A results in withdrawal of alleged affiliation granted by any other University, these students apprehend that the injury resulting to them there from will be incalculable. In the body of the writ petitions they assert that S. 6-A was unconstitutional. But no particular ground elaborates their attack against S. 6-A. The reliefs sought in the writ petitions actually rely on S. 6-A and seeks stringent action against the society. The students. seek entry into the 2nd respondent University, to safeguard their' career.
12. It is an admitted fact, that the college has ceased to function now and the students (to not have any classes to attend.
13. The University has filed its statement of objections, pointing out that no private college or institution imparting education for degree in veterinary sciences etc,, could be affiliated , in view of the provisions of the Act. It also points out that as early as July 1984, society was informed that it cannot get affiliation having regard to the existing law.
14 Mr. S. N. Murthy, learned counsel for the society did not dispute the legislative competence for the enactment of S. 6A of the Act. He challenged its validity as offending the fundamental rights of the petitioners, under Arts. 14, 19( 1)(a) and 19(1)(g). He also relied on Art. 21 of the Constitution.
15. According to the learned counsel. To establish and run an educational institution is a business and any unreasonable restriction thereon Ls unconstitutional. His contention is, by non- affiliations and refusal to recognize the courses in which the students are trained, the students are denied of their right of Notation; they are also deprived of an opportunity of joining the government services. Therefore, education which is the avenue leading to one's livelihood, becomes useless by the impugned action of the State and the University. The establishment of the institution by the petitioners ceases to leave any relevancy and none would be join its college for education. Therefore, the petitioners are deprived of their fundamental right under Art. 19(l)(g) Imparting education is a florin of speech 4n4 expression, right to which guaranteed by Art. M 1)(a) is also nullified. The deprivation of the petitioners rights to have recognition and affiliation is so arbitrary as to offend Art. 14. Singling out a witch few subjects for -exclusive education by the University in the-State, without similar bar in to her subjects offend Art. 14. Section 6-A is enacted having the society and the college in mind and thus also, it is an act of discrimination. The students having lost their proper avenue to education and consequently the source of livelihood are deprived of their rights under Art. 21.
We are not able to agree with this line of reasoning,
RE :ART. 19(1)(g):
16. It 'is unnecessary for us to decide whether imparting of education by establishing an institution comes within the rights enumerated in Art. 19(l)(g), We assume that it falls within Art. 19(l)(g) for the purpose of this case. But right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business stated in Art. 19(l)(g), is subject to the State's power preserved under Art. 1916). In the interest of general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred 1)), Art. 190(g) may be imposed. Restrictions may be reasonable, even if it results in total prohibition or deprivation of the right. If the law made by, the, State sub serves the larger interest of the public, the individual right has to give way. Further, Art. 19(6) makes it clear, that the rights under Art. 19(l)(g) shall not pr6ent the State from making any law relating to the carrying on by the State, or by corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade. business, industry or-service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.
17. University is an instrumentality of the State. It is a statutory corporation established by the Act. It is vested with the exclusive power of imparting education in veterinary sciences. There is no provision for affiliation of a private institution to this University. No law in Karnataka provides for affiliation of a veterinary college to any University. Thus, Art. 19(6) would protect the exclusive power of rendering service in imparting education, in the University.
18. It was argued that till the enactment of S. 6A there was no bar for affiliation of a private college with the University. This, again, is a misreading 9f the Act. No specific provision conferring p6weron the University to grant affiliation was pointed out to us in this regard. In the case of an incorporated body, lack of specific positive power, presumes, absence of any such power unless reasonably such a power can be implied.
19. Powers of the University are enumerated under S. 6. The University is directed to provide for instruction in veterinary and animal science, (and other subjects). I t shall make provision for research. and dissemination of the finding of research. As per S. 60), the University shall institute courses of study and hold examinations for and to confer degrees etc. S. 6(4)(b) was relied upon to urge that it contemplates recognition of any institution by the University. The recognition referred in S. 6(4)(b) is of an institution which carries on research. This sub-section, in fact, by contrast leads to an inference, that the University is not vested with any power to grant affiliation to other it colleges having courses of study leading to degrees. Section 6(8) directs the University to establish and maintain colleges relating to, inter alia, veterinary and allied sciences. If power to grant affiliation to a private institution was contemplated, the law would have included such a power in S. 6(8) itself, as in the case of research institutions under S. 6(4)(b). Section 6(16) empowers the University to do all such acts and things whether incidental to the powers stated in Ss. 6(1) to 6(15) or not, as may be required in order to further the objects of the University. This provision is the usual formula, based on the principle that, when a specific power is granted for a particular object, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means as are essentially' necessary to its execution.
20. Whether implied power exists has to be reduced from the principle, 'whenever a corporation is created by Act of Parliament, with reference to the purposes of the Act, and solely with a view to carrying these purposes into execution, not only the objects which the corporation itself may legitimately pursue must be ascertained from the Act itself, but the powers which the corporation may legitimately use in furtherance of these objects must either be expressly conferred or derived by reasonable implication from its provisions' (Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn., pp. 349-350).
21. For the achievement of its objects, and the effective exercise of the powers conferred on it, it is not necessary to vest a power in the University, to permit private institutions at all. The power of affiliation cannot be termed as incidental to the express powers conferred on it. In fact, whenever a private institution is recognizable, it -is so, stated expressly in S. 6. Therefore, we are of the view that, even prior to the enactment of S. 6A, the University had no power to grant affiliation to the college run by the society.
22. If there is no provision for affiliation and recognition, the running of educational institutions by private parties and organizations like the society, may not serve any purpose. But that does not mean, the fundamental rights under Art. 19(l)(a) or 19(l)(0) are taken away. None is prevented from having his own educational institution. He may impart or receive education of his choice. But such an education cannot be exhibited-d -as qualifying the recipient of the education for public services or practicing any profession. Public has a greater stake in educational matters than the individual specially in the case of education which creates eligibility for services or professions. If, having regard to the nature of the Subject, its vastness and varied mode of imparting training in it and (he public interest, State resolves to impart education in the subject exclusively by itself, or through its instrumental ties, the action of the State cannot be attacked as offending the fundamental rights of any person. In this regard a distinction may arise between subjects involving secular, general education and other technical or scientific subjects.
23. Regarding agriculture and veterinary sciences, State has a special duty imposed on it by Art. 48.of the Constitution, which says, -
'Organization of agriculture and animal husbandry - The State shall endeavor to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall. in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, arid prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.'
24. The right guaranteed to the minorities under Art. 30, in no way, is of smaller degree than the rights guaranteed under Art. 19(l)(g). Principles enumerated by the Courts regarding the powers of Universities to grant recognition or affiliation of private institutions, established by the minorities can usefully be referred, to consider the contents of Art. 19(l)(g). to some extent. Regarding the establishment and administration of educational institutions of their choice by the minorities, in the matter of imparting -general secular education (i.e., not with reference to the field of medicine and engineering etc.), Supreme Court held 11 In several cases, that, there is no fundamental right under which an institution can claim affiliation as a matter of right. The law is summarized in Managing Board of the Milli Talimi Mission, Bihar, Ranchi v. State of Bihar, : 1SCR410 . Para 7 gives the Summary as follows : -
'On a careful and detailed review of the cases cited above. the following position emerges : -
(1) That while Art. .30 undoubtedly seeks to preserve the religious freedom, autonomy and its individuality, there is no fundamental right under which an institution can claim either aid or affiliation as a matter of right. It is permissible for the State or the University). as, the case may be., to lay down reasonable conditions to maintain the excellence of standard of education but in the garb of doing so, refusal to grant affiliation cannot he made a ruse or pretext for destroying (he individuality and personality of the said institution.' If this is done. then apart from being wholly arbitrary arid Unreasonable, it would amount to a clear infraction of the provisions of Art. 30 because what cannot be done directly is done indirectly.
(2) While the State or a University has go absolute right to insist on certain courses of study to be followed by institutions before they could be considered for affiliation but these conditions should not in any way take away the freedom of management or administration of the institution so as to reduce it to a satellite of the University or the State. This is wholly impermissible because such a course of action directly violates Art. (30) of the Constitution.
(3) While imposing conditions before granting affiliation, as indicated above, the State or the University cannot kill or annihilate the individuality or personality of the institution in question by insisting on following a particular kind of syllabus or a course of study which may be directly opposed to the aims. Objects and ideals sought to be achieved by the institutions.
(4) There is a very thin line of distinction. between withholding of affiliation for a particular purpose on extraneous grounds so as to subject the institution to rigorous orders edicts or resolution which may run counter to the dominant purpose for which the institution has been founded, and insisting on genuine and reasonable conditions to be imposed in the larger interest of education.'
25. In S. Azzez Basha v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 662 1he Supreme Court has pointed out the distinction between an educational institution and a University and the power of Government to recognize the degrees conferred by an institution thus (at p. 671) :
'But what distinguishes a University from any other educational institution is that a university grants degrees of its own while -other educational institutions cannot It is the granting of degrees by a university which distinguishes it from the ordinary run of educational institutions. See St. David's College, Lampeter v. Ministry of education (1951) 1 All ER 559. Thus in law in India there was no prohibition against establishment of universities by private individual so or bodies -and if any university was so established it must of necessity be granting degrees before it could be called a university. But though such a university might be granting degrees it did not follow that the governor of the country was bound to recognize those degrees. As a matter of fact, as the law stood up to the time the Constitution came into force, the Government was not bound to recognize degrees of universities established by private individuals or bodies and generally speaking the Government only recognized degrees of Universities established by it by law. No private individual or body could before 1950 insist that the degrees of any university established by him or it must be recognized by Government. Such recognition depended upon the will of Government generally expressed through statute. The importance. of the recognition of Government in matters of this kind cannot be minimized. This position continued even after the it Constitution came into force. It was only in 1956 that by sub sec. (1) of S. 22 of the University Grants Commission Act (No. 3 of 1956) it was laid down that, the right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act .or an institution deemed to be a University under S. 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.'
Sub-sec. (2) thereof further provided that ,.
'save as provided in sub-s. (1), no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself as entitle to confer or grant any degree.'
Section 23 further prohibited the use of the word 'University' by an educational institution unless it is established by law. It was only thereafter that no private individual or body could grant a degree in India.'
(Underlining by us)
26. Though anyone may establish an institution for imparting education, the said, institution cannot seek recognition or affiliation as a matter of right. Its degrees are recognizable. No institution can purport to confer degrees because, that is specifically prohibited by S. 22(1) of the ) university Grants Commission Act, 1956. This statutory bar cannot be circumvented by holding out by an institution, that it is affiliated to a foreign University. What, it cannot do directly, cannot a [so be done by dubious methods or indirect ways. Conferment of degrees in India, is regulated by this Central Act. Creation of the Universities is left to the law making bodies, like the Parliament and the State legislature A foreign University cannot be a University established by a law made in India.
27. None has a f fundamental right to seek recognition or affiliation to a University. The degrees are to be conferred by a University established by law. An institution In India cannot claim a right to have degrees conferred On its students by any University, Indian or foreign. This is a matter of statutory regulation. Like any other law, the law In illusion cannot vest an arbitrary and unreasonable power of affiliation. State cannot mete out discriminatory treatment in the matter of affiliation. Similarly, the University, if vested with a power to grant provided by affiliation cannot exercise it arbitrarily
28. If the State, in its wisdom evolves a policy to vest an exclusive power in a University to impart education in a particular, subject Eke veterinary science, said policy cannot be attacked as violative of the fundamental rights of anyone.
RE. ART. 14.
29. There has been no discrimination meted out against the petitioner society. Petitioner society is treated on par with all other similar institutions. Hence Art. 14 of the Constitution has no application. The Act .has not vested any arbitrary power in the University and hence no provision of the Act be dubbed as arbitrary. As will be recently shown, S. 6A is consequential to the main scheme of the Act, vesting exclusive power in the University to impart education n the subjects referred in the Act.
RE. ART. 19(l)(g).
30. Law has not prohibited anyone from giving expression about veterinary sciences. It is open to the petitioners to arrange for lectures in any of the subjects concerning every sciences. Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(l)(a) can be availed of in this regard. But said right does not include a right to get recognition or affiliation to the institution which arranges the lectures or dissemination of knowledge, by the State. The object of Art. 19(l)(a) is to safeguard the right to express one's convictions and opinions freely subject to Art. 19(2). This freedom includes a right to propagate one's ideas, in any manner. This also includes a right to acquire and impart ideas and information's about any matter of interest to oneself. But, the right here does not include a right to have degrees conferred by the State, by an educational institution.
31. In fact, the members of the petitioner society had enjoyed in ample measures this right under Art. 19(1)(a) hey were able to issue pamphlets, prospectus, and advertisements to tract students to their college. They were able to exploit the impress able minds of the students herein and their parents by resort to the avenues provides by Art 19(1)(a). it is not possible to stretch provisions of Art. 19(1) further to enable these petitioners to get away with their exploitation.
32. Content of Art. 21 has been explained in Olga Trellis, v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., : AIR1986SC180 , and the observations are as follow: -
'.... the question which we have to consider is whether the right to life includes the right to livelihood. We see only one answer to that question, namely, that it does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Art. 21 is wise and far-reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can five without the means of living, that is, them means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make' life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to' livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be -an integral component of the right to Life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of life....'
33. Means of life is an integral part of the right to live, but the guarantee given by Art, 21 is thet same shall not be deprived except according to produce established by law. The state can not be compiled to provide the means of livelihood. In the context to their case, the purport of Art. 21 is to declare that livelihood shall not be deprived except In accordance with law. That is to say the law may regulate, in a fair and reasonable manner, the access to the means of livelihood. his is clear from the further passage in the aforesaid Olga Tellis case, at Para 33 : --
'If there is an obligation upon the State to secure to the citizens an adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, it would be sheer pedantry to exclude the right to livelihood from the content of the right to life. The State may not, by affirmative action, be compellable to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life 'conferred by Art. 21'.
(Underlining by us)
34. Therefore, when the petitioners attack a law as violative of Art. 21, Court has to examine whether, the said law results in deprivation of the means of livelihood and whether the power and procedure provided by the said law is unfair. unreasonable or arbitrary.
35. To the same effect is the observations of the majority in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, : 2SCR621 , which are quoted below, :
'The expression personal liberty in Art. 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection Under Art. 19....It will be seen at once from the language of Art. 21 that the protection it secures limited one . ........Thus. no person can be deprived Of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the Suite prescribing the procedure for so depriving horn and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason. in order to comply with the requirement of Art. 21, that parliament enlaced the Passports Act, 1967 or regulating the right to go abroad. It is learn from the provisions of the Passports ct. 1967 that it laves down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or effused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question . is whether that is sufficient compliance with Art. 21. In the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements Obviously, the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable.'
(Underlining is ours)
36. No such right as claimed in this case is absolute. An adequate means of livelihood, or opportunity to gain access to the means of livelihood is essential for the enjoyment of life. But, can it be said that the State is bound to allow anyone in the State to start educational institutions of his choice or fancy, unregulated and uncontrolled It is not possible to hold that the State should be a helpless spectator to the growth of countless educational institutions in various fields, from which infinite number of students may come out with degrees or diplomas leading to anarchical situation caused by unemployment. If the Suite takes up the responsibility of educating selected candidates for imparting .education in such subjects as veterinary science or agricultural science, the monopoly created in the State by the law, cannot be attacked as deprival of right of livelihood by those, who are unable to secure admissions to those institutions. They cannot be heard to say that, they must have, a right to have their own educational institutions to educate themselves or in a part education to others, which should be recognized by affiliation to the University. The law bestowing exclusive right in such a subject as this, in the instrumentality of the State cannot be, for bole reason alone, (that is vesting exclusive right in the University to impart education) be termed as unfair or unreasonable.
37. Section 6-A is attacked on the ground ' of its alleged extra-territorial impact. This is not correct. The object is to prohibit any one from imparting education in the subject, which has been exclusively vested in the University. The territory of Karnataka cannot be used for an activity, resulting in the defeat of its law. The. impact of S. 6A is not on the foresight University. It.- operates on the institutions situated in Karnataka. It was contended that, the language used in S. 6A commands withdrawal of recognition given outside University: the outside r is not bound to obey such a command.
38. The language of S. 6A is not happily worded. It will have to be understood in the context of the Act. It should be read so as to advance the object and scheme of the Act. Second part of S. 6A is necessary to effectuate the earlier part of S. 6A. As already held, no exception can be taken to the command contained therein, when it states, 'no educational institution situate within the State of Karnataka imparting education of the type specified in S. 4 or for the purposes specified therein shall be associated in any way with or be admitted to any privileges of and affiliated to any other University outside the State of Karnataka....... This is necessary to keep alive the exclusive function of the University created by the Act. The serious objection advanced is to the next command, which deems withdrawal of any such affiliation given by an outside University. Inst,-ad of declaring such affiliation granted by an outside University ineffective, legislature his adopted the device of creating a legal fiction. The result is the same. No institution in Karnataka can hold out as being affiliated to an outside University and such affiliation is rendered ineffective by this deeming provision.
39. Deeming provision is a well known legislative device. What in fact is not done as a fact is treated as having done under this -fiction. In this connection, the passage from East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Fins bury Borough Council, 1952 AC 109 - quoted by the Supreme Court in M. K. Venkatachalam, I.-T.O. v. Bombay Dyeing and ., : 34ITR143(SC) , may be apposite. It rapids as follows:-
'If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which,' if the putative state of affairs had in face existed, must inevitable have flowed from or accompanied it. One of those in this case is emancipation from the 1939 level of rents. The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs.'
40. Here, the consequence of imagining that the recognition stands withdrawn is that the institution will be without any affiliation. In law the outside affiliation ceases to have any force. Benefits of affiliation cannot be enjoyed by the institution such as the petitioners. This reflects the policy of the Act, that no other institution shall take up imparting education in veterinary science in the State and such an institution has no right of affiliation or recognition.
41. The learned Government Pleader also placed before us the theory that if a provision of law is of doubtful validity, it should be read down to make it valid and the provision is to be interpreted to advance the real intention of the legislature. He cited the decisions in State of Tamil Nadu v. Kodaikanal Motor Union Pvt. Ltd., : 2SCR927 ; Girdhari Lal & Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur, : 1SCR383 and Bhag Mal v. Ch. Parbhu Ram, : 1SCR1099 . The reliance is on the statement of the principle by Lord Denning, in Seaford Court Estates v. Asher, (1949) 2 A H ER 155, which are: --
' .........When a defect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament........and then he must supplement the written word so as to give 'force and life' to the intention of the legislature ........ A Judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases.'
After quoting the above passage, the Supreme Court proceeded, at Para 17, thus:--
The Courts must always seek to find out the intention of the legislature. Though the Courts must find out the intention of the statute from the language used, but language more often than not is an imperfect instrument of expression of. human thought. As Lord Denning said it would be idle to expect every statutory provision to be drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity. As Judge Learned Hand said, we must not make a fortress out of dictionary but remember that statutes must have some purpose or object, ,whose imaginative discovery is judicial I craftsmanship. We need not always cling to ;literalness and should seek to endeavor to !avoid an unjust or absurd result. We should ,not make a mockery of legislation. To make Sense out of an unhappily worded provision, .where the purpose is apparent to the judicial eye 'some' violence to language is permissible.'
The same principle was reiterated in Girdhari Lars case at Para 9 thus : -
'So we see that the primary and foremost, task of a Court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having ascertained the intention, the Court must then strive to so interpret the statute as to promote/advance the object and purpose of the enactment. For this purpose, where necessary the Court may even depart-from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning. There need be no meek and mute, submission to the plainness of the, language. To avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or to avoid invalidation of a law, the Court would be we well justified in departing from the so-called golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment by supplementing the written word if necessary.'
It is unnecessary to multiply citations in this regard.
42. There is no doubt about the intention of the legislature in enacting S. 6A. Purpose was to nullify the effect of affiliation extended to an educational institution situated in Karnataka, by an outside University. The object is to declare that within the boundary of Karnataka, the field of education' in the particular subjects, is entirety controlled and regulated by the State and any interference by outsider will not be of any use to any one The fife and the breath, to an institution in Karnataka, can be imbued only by the State of Karnataka.
43. This policy is further clear by referring to S. 5(2) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 19176, which has practically repeated similar words., This reads as follows:-
'5(2) : Subject to the provisions of any other law relating to Universities for the time being in force, no educational institution situate within the University Area shall be associated in any way with or be admitted to any privileges of and affiliated to any other University established and incorporated by law and any such affiliation granted, by any such other University to any such institution within the said territorial jurisdiction prior to ,the appointed date shall be deemed to be withdrawn on that date.'
We accept this legislative device as a meaningful and effective way to prevent outside interference with the effective implementation of the provisions of the State Law. The particular clause in S. 6A, is a machinery provision enacted to achieve the object of the Act. If the State is competent to enact the law governing the education in, veterinary sciences in Karnataka, and the recognizable degrees are to be obtained only by studying in an institution established by the Act, viz., the University and such a law is otherwise valid, then S. 6A cannot be attacked in isolation.
44. We have already held that the State is competent to vest exclusive power to impart recognizable education in certain subjects, in its instrumentalities. Such a law would not offend the fundamental rights of anyone. Along with such a law a provision like S. 6A of the Act may be enacted without any constitutional inhibition thereto.
45. Whatever may be reliefs sought by the student-petitioners, the averments in their writ petitions expose the petitioner-society. These students have been able to pierce through and tear the glittering garb under witch the society functioned. The scheme to exploit the parents and students, who in their intense desire to have proper education, has been brought out in these writ petitions. The unfortunate eagerness of many of the Indian public, for educational qualification with a foreign degree has pushed them into the web of deception woven by the society.
46. Words used by the Supreme Curtin A. P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt.of Andh Pradesh, : 2SCR749 can aptly be repeated in the context of this case :
'... As we had already mentioned the petitioner had the temerity to admit or pretend to admit students in the first year MBBS course without any permission being granted by the Government for the starting of the medical college and without any affiliation being granted by the University. The society did this despite the strong protest voiced by the University and the several warnings issued by the University. The society acted in defiance of the University and the Government, in disregard of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, the Osmania University Act and the Regulations of the Osmania University and with total indifference to the interest and welfare of the students. The society has played havoc with the careers of several score students and jeopardized their future irretrievably. Obviously the, so-called establishment of a medical college was in the nature of a financial adventure for the so-called society and its office bearers, but an educational misadventure for the students. Many, many conditions had to be fulfilled before affiliation could be granted by the University. Yet the society launched into the venture without fulfilling a single condition beyond appointing someone as Principal. No one could have imagined that a medical college could f unction without a teaching hospital, without the necessary scientific equipment, without the necessary staff, without the necessary buildings and without the necessary funds. Yet that is what the society did or pretended to do. We do not have any doubt that the society and the so-called institutions were started as business ventures with a view to make money from gullible individuals anxious to obtain admission to professional colleges. It was nothing but a daring imposture and skull duggery'.
47. In the same case, the students of the said institution sought direction of the Court to permit them to take examination or protect their interests. At Para 10, such a prayer was turned down. It was held that any direction of the nature sought by the students would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the relevant statutes. It was further observed at p. 1497 thus:
'We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws'.
48. In Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, : AIR1986SC1188 a somewhat similar prayer of an unrecognized Teachers Training Institute and its students was rejected by the Supreme Court; at page 1191 it was observed : -
'If by a fiat of the Court we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the examination we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorized institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either under Art. 32 of the Constitution or Art. 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose. The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organized and equipped Training Institute is probably essential before a teacher be duly launched.'
These observations would equally, apply to the education and training of veterinary Doctors and the petitioner society in this case.
49. It is necessary to state some more facts to appreciate the activities of the society. In the year 1983, the society approached the Bangalore University seeking affiliation. which by its letter dt. 26-9-1983 directed the society to approach the University of Agricultural Sciences (the University) in this, regard. The University when approached, replied in June, 1984 and pointed out its inability to grant affiliation to the society. A second representation was made to the University. The University in it reply dated 16-7-1984 referred to the Act and stated that it was not within its purview to grant affiliation to the college run by the society. Thus it was clear to the society even during the years 1983 and 1984, that neither the Bangalore University, nor the University could grant affiliation to the society. The activities of the society were subject of discussion in the State Legislature. The society had filed W. P. No. 16473/1983 in this Court challenging the statement made by the Government that the society's college was not affiliated to the University. The said statement also had warned the public against joining the college, as it was not recognized. The said writ petition was rejected as not maintainable. In spite of these facts, the society held out that it was affiliated to the New Port University, United States of America and continued its operation of admitting students. The society ignored the advice rendered by the University Grants Commission that its college should get affiliation from one of the recognized Indian Universities. The President of the Karnataka Veterinary Council wrote on 19-7-1984 to the President of the said New Port University, seeking information as to whether it had accorded affiliation to the society. The reply received by him was vague. One Paramahamsa, replied stating that 'we are enclosing herewith Photostat copy of letter from New Port University .....' The said Photostat copy of the letter states that Paramahamsa was 'authorized to operate on behalf of New Port University - USA, official branch offices or facilities in India. Central Administration for New Port University India is authorized at the above located address'. Thus, New Port University evaded the issue. Obviously, it was necessary for it to send such an evasive reply, because it had no credentials at all to function as an University under the laws of U.S.A. In Sept., 1984, the American Veterinary Medical Association wrote to the President of Karnataka Veterinary Council, stating that no institution called New Port University, California, was listed as an accredited American University. Said letter points out the requirement of a proper recognition by the Government of the Country in which the college is situated, for its graduates to qualify for practicing veterinary medicine. The letter further points out the procedure in USA and Canada before approving the colleges in other countries, as accredited colleges. The United States Education Foundations in India wrote to the Registrar of University stating that New Port University was an institution which Was not accredited by anybody.
50. In the advertisement issued by the society inviting applications for admissions and in a magazine published by it in August, 1983, it was asserted that the college was affiliated to 'International University', Missouri, USA and permission was being sought from Karnataka State Government for the establishment of the college and recognition of its degrees. The society has not explained as to what happened to its affiliation allegedly granted to it by the 'International University' earlier in Dec., 1982 and as to why, it shifted its affiliation to the New Port University in 1984. Paras 2 and 3 of the writ petition of the society give an impression that, in view of the procedural difficulties in getting affiliation from an Indian University, the society got its college affiliated from an American University as per Annexure-E. Annexure-E is dated 20-8-1984 purporting to be by New Port University. It is addressed to the society conferring affiliation to the society. In its statement of objections filed in W. P. No. 14696/85, the society has asserted that its affiliation with International University was conferred by the said University as per a letter dt. 31-2-1982.
51. In spite of the repeated assertions made by the students, the State of Karnataka and the University, that credentials of these alleged American Universities are not established, the society has not cared to prove them. It is clear that no such accredited Universities exist in the United States of America. Probably, a few individuals in U.S.A.constituted themselves, as the University and have been extending a helping hand to those who venture in India (like the society herein), in the field of education to exploit the innocent public. We have no hesitation to hold that. the society and its co-petitioners were perfectly aware that the said American Universities lacked legal power to confer recognizable degrees on Indian students, and with full knowledge of this incapacity, the sponsors of the society advertised themselves as capable of procuring degrees for the students of the society.
52. The conduct of the society (a term which we have used frequently to include its co-petitioners and other sponsors of the society and the college), is highly reprehensible. On 12-9-1985 this court had stayed operation of S. 6A of the Act, at the instance of the society. But this interim order was vacated on 2-4-1986. By that time students also had filed their writ petitions, explaining the exploitations of the society. Bangalore University had warned the society not to advertise etc., in Newspapers inviting applications for the courses held out by the society. It was admitted before us that the college had stopped functioning after the order of this Court dt. 2-4-1986. In spite of all these happenings, the society stood undaunted. It continued to follow its own path, unmindful of the pitfalls. The students in an I.A. dt. 9-7-1987 filed In W. P. No. 12587/1985, have brought out that the society issued a circular to all the parents/guardians of the students to the effect that the students should clear 'all arrears and dues before 20-7-1987 and that classes would commence from August, 1987'. They have produced a copy of the Circular as Annexure L. The society also issued an advertisement in the Indian Express, Bangalore, edition, dt. 8-7-1987, inviting applications from the candidates seeking admissions to B.V.Sc. (Bachelor in Veterinary Sciences) Course (extract filed as Annexure M). The counsel for the society admitted before us that the said advertisement was issued by the sponsors of the society. The society had ignored every norms of propriety, by repeating its assertion that it is capable of imparting education, leading to degree course. Instead of mending itself, it is pursuing its scheme to get itself enriched at the cost of innocent public. At every stage of these writ petitions, it held out itself as an affiliate of an American University. It allured the students by offering attractive avenues for jobs and practice in veterinary science, with full knowledge that, its was factually not possible.
53. Parental desire and anxiety to educate their children in branches of science, or medicine, has made them vulnerable for unethical exploitation by these adventurists, who have ventured to exhibit themselves as pioneers in establishing a private veterinary college. To recapitulate, a society was formed and registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, called 'Bharatiya Veterinary Educational Society'. The society announced its capabilities through a book-let called 'Prospectus and Syllabus' with an attractive glazed cover page, with bold letters printed as Bharatiya Veterinary College', (an Unit of Bhratiya Veterinary Educational Society, registered with Registrar of Societies, Government of Karnataka, India, etc., to give an outward impression that the society has the approval of the State Government). Noble thoughts are found expressed in the inner pages of the book-let. Intensive and instructive curriculum to the students was held out by the society. The course of study is to be full classes, practical in the faculty of veterinary science leading to five year course with a misleading nomenclature as B.V.Sc. and A.P.M. (Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Production Management). Foreign Universities are named to lend magnetism to attract students, without any real basis. On successful completion of the course of study, every possibility of access to public services and attractive jobs, was held out. Students and their parents have fallen prey to the mechanizations of the society. Admittedly they have paid large sums of money by way of tuition fees and capitation fee called 'voluntary contributions'. The learned counsel for the society has filed before us the particulars of the amounts collected by the society from some of the students. The students assert that they have paid some more amounts such as laboratory fee and higher donations. Other students also assert having paid the alleged voluntary contributions in large sums. It is not possible for us to decide the question exhaustively for want of material. For the limited purpose of these writ petitions' we assume that the society and the college have collected the amounts stated in the aforesaid statement furnished by the learned counsel for the society. There is no doubt in our mind that the society and the college knowingly indulged in improper activities in holding out themselves as a great educational institution, capable of getting recognized degrees to their students. We are constrained to observe that the State Government should take appropriate steps (either by legislative or otherwise) to prevent such unauthorized institutions coming up. The relief sought by the students for action as against the society under S. 27-A is for the State Government to consider. But we doubt its efficacy.
54. We cannot direct the State Government or the University to admit these students in their institution. The admission of students to the University for education in veterinary sciences, is regulated by several factors with limited number of seats. Subjects is covered by the provisions of the Act. As observed by the Supreme Court in the two cases from Andhra Pradesh referred above, any such direction by us will be transgressing the limits of law. We cannot convert the University into an orphanage for these students. But this court is not entirely helpless. Power under Art. 226 includes a power to grant equitable relief having regard to the proved circumstances of a case. The society cannot be allowed to enrich itself unjustly. It cannot get away with its undeserving spoils.
55. As stated earlier, counsel for the society placed before us a statement showing voluntary contributions and fees paid by 54 students. There are in all 102 student petitioners before us. The statements does not cover the payments made by all these 102 students. These students have asserted the payment of Rs. 21,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. The statement regarding 54 students filed before us shows that a minimum of nearly Rs. 15,000/- was collected in a few cases as voluntary contributions etc. Therefore, in the respect of those students, whose names are not found in the said statement, we can safely assume that those students must have paid at .least Rs. 15,000/-under different heads. The directions we are issuing here for the refund of the monies collected by the society and the college will be without prejudice to the rights of any of the students herein or other students to seek reimbursement, compensation or damages for any other or further sum from the society, its sponsors and others.
(contd.on col. 2)
56. Accordingly, we direct the society and its co-petitioners in W.P.No 12587/1985, to pay the students, the sums stated against their names below, with interest thereon at twelve per cent per annum, with effect from to day till the date of payment:
_________________________________________________________________________________ Sl. No. Name Amount_________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Naveen Noel Rs. 28,160.002. Neena Joshi Rs. 17,760-60 3. S. A. Bahab Rs. 27,760-00 4. Venkatesh,C Rs. 27,760-00 5. K. Shashidar Rs. 20,760-00 6. Biju P. George Rs. 20,700-007. C.H.ChalamaReddy Rs. 20,760-00 8. D.Rajkumar Reddy Rs. 20,760-00 9. Ranga Reddy Rs. 20,760-00 10. M. Rajashekhar Reddy Rs. 27,760-00 11. Ravichand Ismaval Rs. 13,760-00 12. Eldo Paul Rs. 27,760-00 13. Manoj, P. Rs. 27,760-00 14. Mohd. Atteapur Rehman Rs. 23,760-00 15. Satish S. Nair Rs. 12,760-00 16. MandeepSinghDhami Rs. 27,760-0017. Satpal Singh Rs. 27,760-00 18. Daip Singh Thakur Rs. 27,760-0019. G.ChandrasekharReddy Rs.25,260-0020. Pramod Kumar Singha Rs.26,260-0021. Lioyd Cyril Vaz Rs.7,760-0022. P.Raghunath Rs. 17,760-0023. A. Ramesh Rs. 25,760-0024. M. Venkatadri Prasad Rs. 24,760-0025. K. V. V. Satyanerayana Rs. 8,460-0026. K. Chandrasekhar Reddy Rs. 27,760-0027. V. Ravikumar Rs. 24,760-0028. L Krishnakumar Rs. 27,760-0029. James I Kunnath Rs. 28,730-0030. Peter Zachariah, K. Rs. 28,730-0031. A. Chandrasekhara Reddy Rs. 28,730-0032. Raiesh I Sondkar Rs. 28,730-0033. Ram Jodh Singh.Rana Rs. 28,730-0034. Prashant K, Ahuwaria Rs. 28,730-0035. B. Vikraman Pillai Rs. 28,730-0036. Chacko, Joy Rs. 28,730-0037. M. Kalyanchakravarthy Rs. 26,330-0038. P. Vadivel Rs. 28,730.0039. P. Alphonse Jayaraj Rs. 23,330-0040. A. R. Dixon Rs. 28,730-0041. M. Ramesh Babu Rs. 28,730-0042. K. Srinivasa Rao Rs. 28,730-0043. P. Vajra Kumar Rs. 28,730-0044. D. Rangaswami Reddy Rs. 24,760-0045. C. Narayana Reddy Rs. 27,760-0046. E. V. Bhaskar Reddy Rs. 27,760-0047. Venkatesh Rs. 20,760-0048. G. Chandrasekhar Reddy Rs. 25,260-0049. K. Ramesh Reddy Rs. 26,760-0050. K. C. S. Verma Rs. 27,760-0051. S. G. Raji Reddy Rs. 27,760-0052. K. Tharakaswamy Rs. 28,730-0053. V. Varadha Rao Rs. 28,160-0054. G. Radhakrishna Rs. 27,160-00
57. Regarding other student-petitioners, the society and its co-petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to each of the said students with interest thereon at twelve per cent per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.
58. In view of the foregoing, we make the following :
(i) W. P. No. 12587/1985 (filed by the society) is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(ii) W. P. Nos. 14696 and 18238 of 1985 (filed by the students) are partly allowed.
(iii),The society, its co-petitioners and 1he college shall refund the amounts stated in paras 54 and 55 of this order to the respective petitioner-students with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from the date of this order till payment.
(iv) The society, its co-petitioners and the college shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the State and the University towards their costs of these proceedings and a sum of Rs.10,000 in all, to the student-petitioners,
59. Order accordingly.