{"id":187564,"date":"2008-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-06-17T10:34:38","modified_gmt":"2017-06-17T05:04:38","slug":"gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gnanyog vs State on 26 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Gnanyog vs State on 26 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Mr. K.S.Radhakrishnan,&Nbsp;Honourable Shah,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/9840\/2008\t 9\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9840 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9841 of 2008\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.\nK.S.RADHAKRISHNAN\n \n\n\t\t\t\tand\n \nHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT\nS. SHAH\n \n \n=============================================\n<\/pre>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
To
\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the
\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n<\/p>\n
=============================================<\/p>\n
GNANYOG
\nEDUCATION AND WELFARE TRUST – Petitioner(s)<\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
STATE
\nOF GUJARAT & 1 – Respondent(s)<\/p>\n
=============================================
\nAppearance
\n:\n<\/p>\n
MR
\nYN OZA Sr. Advocate with MR BP GUPTA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
\nMR
\nSUNIT SHAH GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MR DIPEN DESAI AGP  for
\nRespondent(s) : 1,
\nMR MITUL K SHELAT for Respondent(s) :\n<\/p>\n
2.
\n=============================================<\/p>\n
CORAM
\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN<\/p>\n
                                     and<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH<\/p>\n
Date
\n:    26\/09\/2008
\nCOMMON CAV JUDGMENT <\/p>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH)<\/p>\n
\tThese
\npetitions raise common questions about legality and constitutional
\nvalidity of the Government Resolution dated 4.10.2007 issued by the
\nState Government in the Education Department, the operative portion
\nof which reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
?SAs the universities
\nsituated in the State are capable of giving affiliation to colleges
\nin adequate proportion, the State Government resolves not to grant
\n?SNo Objection Certificate?? to the institutions desiring to start
\ncollege with affiliations with universities situated in other States.
\nThe functioning of educational work, which at present are being
\nperformed by the colleges affiliated with the universities situated
\nin other States, shall remain unchanged.??\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nfacts leading to filing of these petitions, briefly stated are as
\nunder :-\n<\/p>\n
\tThese
\npetitions are filed by a trust registered under the Bombay Public
\nTrusts Act, 1950.  The petitioner ?  trust is desirous of
\nestablishing  a Library and Information Science college and another
\ncollege for Degree in Master of Social Works and to get these
\ncolleges affiliated to SNDT Women’s University, Mumbai. The said
\ntrust obtained provisional permission from SNDT Women’s University
\nfor starting the above colleges under letters dated 4.1.2008
\nindicating that provisional permission to start the aforesaid
\ncolleges from academic year 2008-09 was subject to ?SNo Objection
\nCertificate?? from the State Government. The trust accordingly
\napplied to the State Government in the Education Department on
\n19.6.2008 for  ?SNo Objection Certificates?? of the State
\nGovernment for affiliation of the above colleges to SNDT University.
\nThe State Government has not issued any such no objection certificate
\nfor either of the colleges on account of its policy as contained in
\nthe aforesaid Government Resolution dated 4.10.2007. Hence, the
\npresent petitions challenging the aforesaid Government Resolution
\ndated 4.10.2007 and for consequential directions.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tMr
\nYN Oza, learned counsel for the petitioner- trust has submitted that
\nthe SNDT Women’s University was established in the year 1916 to
\nsupport and encourage women’s education in the entire country.
\nThough the said University is constituted as per the Act passed by
\nthe Legislature of then Bombay State and presently continued under
\nthe Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, the University has all India
\njurisdiction and conducts or affiliates only women’s education
\ncolleges\/ institutions in various States and Union Territories in
\nIndia and even abroad. It is further submitted that the State
\nGovernment cannot impose a blanket ban on affiliation of a women’s
\ncollege in Gujarat to a University outside the State.\n<\/p>\n
\tRelying
\non the provisions of Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution read
\nwith Entry 66 in the Central list in Schedule VII to the
\nConstitution, it is submitted that ?Scoordination and determination
\nof standards in institutions of higher education?? is a matter
\nwithin the domain of the Centre and that the Parliament having
\nenacted  the UGC Act, 1956 and the UGC also having recognized the
\nSNDT Women’s University as having All India jurisdiction, the
\nimpugned resolution is unconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n
\tPlacing
\nstrong reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of State
\nof Maharashtra vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya &
\nOrs.,<\/a> (2006) 9 SCC 1, Prof. Yashpal vs. State of Chhattisgarh,<\/a> (2005)
\n5 SCC 420 and Bharati Vidyapeeth vs. State of Maharashtra (2004) 11
\nSCC 755 (para 7), it is vehemently contended that the State
\nGovernment has no power to refuse to grant NOC merely on the ground
\nthat the University (to which the colleges to be established by the
\npetitioner ?  trust are seeking  affiliation) is situate outside the
\nState of Gujarat. Lastly, it is submitted that the entire Government
\nResolution is based on the premise that if a college in Gujarat State
\nis affiliated to a University outside the State, the effective
\nmonitoring\/ regulation of the State Government with regard to the
\nnorms \/ standards of education, administration cannot be done and if
\nthese colleges will be started  with affiliation to a University
\nsituate within the State, monitoring of the institution can be done
\neffectively and efficiently. However, the petitioner ?  trust  has
\nno objection if the colleges to be established by it are monitored \/
\nregulated by the State Government with regard to infrastructure,
\nadministration and fee structure.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tMr
\nMitul K Shelat, learned counsel for the SNDT Women’s University  has
\nsubmitted that the State Government is not justified in imposing a
\nblanket ban on affiliation of women’s colleges within the State of
\nGujarat to the SNDT University merely on the ground that the latter
\nis having its headquarters at Mumbai. It is submitted that the SNDT
\nUniversity  will have no objection to the Government of Gujarat
\nregulating and monitoring the infrastructure, administration and fee
\nstructure of the colleges within the State of Gujarat proposed to be
\naffiliated to SNDT University. However, it is submitted on behalf of
\nSNDT University that in the matter of admissions, it would not be
\npossible for such colleges to participate in the centralised
\nadmission system for colleges within the State of Gujarat, because
\nthe SNDT University conducts its own common entrance test for
\nadmissions to all colleges  affiliated to SNDT University all over
\nthe country. It is submitted that it is open to the State Government
\nto consider applications for NOCs on case to case basis and in a
\ngiven case the State Government may be justified in refusing to grant
\nNOC if the proposed colleges does not have the required
\ninfrastructure or faculty or on any other relevant ground, but the
\nState Government cannot be permitted to refuse to grant NOC only on
\nthe ground that the University to which affiliation is sought is
\noutside the State of Gujarat. Reference is made to the provisions of
\nSections 105 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and similar
\nprovisions in the previous legislations on the subject.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tOn
\nthe other hand, Mr Sunit Shah, learned Government Pleader appearing
\nfor the State Government has opposed the petitions and made the
\nfollowing submissions :-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\npetitioner proposes  to establish colleges for Library Science and
\nSocial Works in Sabarkantha district, which falls within the
\nterritorial jurisdiction of Shri Hemchandracharya North Gujarat
\nUniversity established under the North Gujarat University Act, 1986.
\nSection 5 of the said Act read with Schedule to the Act provides that
\nno college within the districts of Sabarkantha, Banaskantha and
\nMehsana (now Mehsana and Patan) can seek affiliation to any other
\nUniversity without the prior approval of the State Government and the
\nNorth Gujarat University. Relying on the decisions in (2007) 6 SCC
\n35, (2005) 7 SCC 330 and (2005) 5 SCC 420, it is contended that the
\nconcept of territorial jurisdiction of a University is very much
\nrelevant. It is submitted that when the colleges proposed to be
\nestablished by the petitioner ?  trust can be granted affiliation to
\nthe North Gujarat University within whose territorial jurisdiction
\nthe colleges are proposed to be established, the State Government
\nwould be justified in refusing to grant NOC for affiliation of the
\nproposed colleges to SNDT Women’s University located in Mumbai. It is
\nsubmitted that with mushrooming of several colleges in the State, the
\nState Government has found that  a University like the SNDT Women’s
\nUniversity situate in Mumbai cannot effectively regulate \/ monitor
\nthe colleges within the State of Gujarat. Such monitoring can be done
\neffectively and efficiently only if the Colleges are affiliated to
\nthe local university within the State, within whose territorial
\njurisdiction, the colleges are proposed to be established.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tWe
\nhave heard the learned counsel for the parties and given anxious
\nconsideration to the rival submission.  Before dealing with the same,
\nwe may set out the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions
\nand refer to the relevant decisions.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe
\nrelevant entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution read as
\nunder :-\n<\/p>\n
SEVENTH
\nSCHEDULE<\/p>\n
List I ?  Union List<\/p>\n
66.\tCo-ordination and
\ndetermination of standards in institutions for higher education or
\nresearch and scientific and technical institutions.\n<\/p>\n
List III ?  Concurrent
\nList<\/p>\n
25.\tEducation, including
\ntechnical education, medical education and universities, subject to
\nthe provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocations and
\ntechnical training of labour.\n<\/p>\n
————————\n<\/p>\n
\tSection
\n105 in Chapter XIII of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 reads
\nas under :-\n<\/p>\n
CHAPTER
\n   XIII<\/p>\n
SPECIAL
\nPROVISIONS FOR SHREEMATI NATHABAI  DAMODAR <\/p>\n
THACKERSEY
\nWOMEN’S UNIVERTIY<\/p>\n
105 (1)\tIn addition to
\nthe other provisions of this Act, and Statutes, the provisions set
\nout in this section shall apply to the Shreemati Nathabai Damodar
\nThackersey Women’s University.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe territorial
\nlimits, within which the powers conferred upon the university by this
\nAct shall be exercised, shall comprise the State of Maharashtra :\n<\/p>\n
 Provided that, the
\nuniversity may, subject to such conditions and restriction as it and
\nthe State Government may think fit to impose, admit any women’s
\neducational institution in any other territory to the privileges of
\nthe university, with the approval of the Government concerned.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tAny female student
\nfrom any part of the State of Maharashtra or any other territory may
\nregister as a private student of the university or join
\ncorrespondence course or any other external degree or diploma course
\nof the university.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tAny society,
\nassociation or body in the State of Maharashtra seeking affiliation
\nor recognition by the University to the college or institution
\nstarted or conducted by it exclusively for women students need not
\nseek the provision of any other university in the area of which the
\ncollege or the institution, as the case may be, is to be or is
\nlocated. … …\t…\t….??\n<\/p>\n
[emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nrelevant provisions of the North Gujarat University Act, 1986 read as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\tIn
\nthis Act, unless the context otherwise require –\n<\/p>\n
(17)\t?SUniversity area??\n<\/p>\n
means the area specified in the Schedule <\/p>\n
i.e. Banaskantha
\nDistrict, Mehsana District and Sabarkantha District;\n<\/p>\n
5.\tJurisdiction and
\nadmission to privileges ?  (1)  No educational institution
\nsituated within the University area shall, save with the sanction of
\nthe State Government and the University, be associated in any way
\nwith, or seek admission to any privileges of, any other University
\nestablished by law.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\t…\t…\t….\t…\t…\t…\t…\t…\t….\n<\/p>\n
(3)\t…\t…\t….\t…\t…\t….\t…\t…\t….\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tAny educational
\ninstitution in the State of Gujarat situate outside the University
\narea may, subject to such conditions and restrictions as the
\nUniversity and State Government think fit to impose, be admitted to
\nthe privileges of the University.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tUniversity open to all
\nirrespective of sex, religion, class, creed of opinion ?  (1)  No
\nperson shall be excluded from any office of the University or from
\nmembership of any of its authorities or from admission to any degree,
\ndiploma or other academic distinction or course of study on the sole
\nground of sex, race, creed, caste, class, place of birth, religious
\nbelief or political or other opinion :\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the
\n University may, subject to the previous sanction of the State
\nGovernment maintain,  affiliate or recognize any college or
\ninstitution exclusively for women, or reserve for women or for
\nsocially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for
\nmembers of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribunal, seats for
\nthe purposes of admission as students in any institution maintained
\nby the University.\n<\/p>\n
AFFILIATION, RECOGNITION
\nAND APPROVAL<\/p>\n
35 (1)\tA college applying
\nfor an affiliation to the University shall send a letter  of
\napplication to the Registrar, not later than 31st March of
\nthe year preceding the year in which the college is proposed to be
\nstarted:\n<\/p>\n
…\t…\t…\t…\t…\t…\t…\n<\/p>\n
(5)\t The Registrar
\nshall submit the application and all proceedings, if any, of the
\nAcademic Council and the Executive Council relating thereto  to the
\nState Government which shall after such inquiry as may appear to it
\nto be necessary, grant or refuse the application or any part thereof.\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tWhere the application
\nor any part thereof is granted, the order of the State Government
\nshall specify the course of the instructions in respect of which the
\ncollege is affiliated and where the application or any part thereof
\nis refused, the grounds of such refusal shall be recorded.\n<\/p>\n
[emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
9.\tIn
\nState of Maharashtra vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
\nMahavidyalaya,<\/a> (2006) 9 SCC 1 (hereinafter referred to as ?Sthe Sant
\nDnyaneshwar case), the Apex Court examined the provisions of National
\nCouncil for Teacher Education Act, 1993 in the context of the
\nfollowing facts.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nNational Council for Teacher Education granted recognition to several
\ninstitutions in Maharashtra for establishing colleges for teacher
\neducation. The Government of Maharashtra, however, refused to grant
\nNOC on the ground that it had taken a policy decision in 2004 not to
\ngrant NOC for any teacher training institution for the academic year
\n2005-06 and that, therefore, the petitioner ?  college shall not be
\ngranted any affiliation to any University within the State of
\nMaharashtra. Since without the University affiliation, the course
\ncould not be commenced and since the admission process was in advance
\nstage, the institutions filed writ petitions before the Bombay High
\nCourt. The State of Maharashtra also filed the writ petition
\nchallenging the grant of recognition by NCTE ignoring the policy
\ndecision of the State. The High Court allowed the writ petitions
\nfiled by the educational institutions and dismissed the writ petition
\nof the State Government holding that the University and the State
\ncannot take any action by overlooking the decision of the NCTE. The
\nState of Maharashtra  challenged the above decisions before the Apex
\nCourt. Dismissing the appeals of the State Government, the Apex Court
\nheld that the final authority with regard to teacher education was
\nNCTE and its decision ought to be implemented by all authorities in
\nlight of the provisions of NCTE Act  and the law laid down by the
\nApex Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nCourt noted the provisions of the NCTE Act and particularly its
\npreamble, which reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
The Preamble of the Act
\nprovides for establishment of National Council for Teacher Education
\n(NCTE) with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development
\nof the teacher-education system throughout the country, the
\nregulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the
\nteacher- education system and for matters connected therewith.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe aforesaid decision, the Apex court made the following
\nobservations in paragraphs 57 and 63 :-\n<\/p>\n
57. \tIt is thus clear
\nthat the Central Government has considered the subject of Secondary
\nEducation and Higher Education at the national level. The Act of 1993
\nalso requires Parliament to consider Teacher Education System
\n‘throughout the country’. NCTE, therefore, in our opinion, is
\nexpected to deal with applications for establishing new B.Ed.
\ncolleges or allowing increase in intake capacity, keeping in view
\n1993 Act and planned and co-ordinated development of
\nteacher-education system in the country. It is neither open to the
\nState Government nor to a University to consider the local conditions
\nor apply ‘State policy’ to refuse such permission. In fact, as held
\nby this Court in cases referred to hereinabove, State Government has
\nno power to reject the prayer of an institution or to overrule the
\ndecision of NCTE. The action of the State Government, therefore, was
\ncontrary to law and has rightly been set aside by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
63. \tIn our opinion, the
\nobservations that the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the
\nMaharashtra University Act are “null and void” could not be
\nsaid to be correct. To us, it appears that what the High Court wanted
\nto convey was that the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 would not
\napply to an institution covered by 1993 Act. As per the scheme of the
\nAct, once recognition has been granted by NCTE under Section14(6) of
\nthe Act , every university (‘examining body’) is obliged to grant
\naffiliation to such institution and sections 82 and 83 of the
\nUniversity Act do not apply to such cases.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn
\nJaya Gokul Education Trust vs. Commissioner & Secretary to
\nGovernment High Education Department, (2000) 5 SCC 231, the appellant
\n?  trust submitted an application to the University of Kerala and to
\nAll India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) seeking to set up a
\nself-financing engineering college. While inspection team of the
\nUniversity made a favourable recommendation for granting affiliation
\nto the college of the appellant trust and AICTE also granted
\nconditional approval, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions,
\nthe State Government refused to grant permission for establishing a
\ncollege. The writ petition of the appellant ?  trust was allowed by
\nlearned Single Judge  who directed the Government to reconsider its
\ndecision and also directed the University to consider the appellant’s
\ncase for affiliation without reference to the State Government’s
\norder. However, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal
\nof the State Government and dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme
\ncourt allowed the appeal of the educational institution and held that
\nthe University could not impose any conditions inconsistent with the
\nAICTE Act or regulations and the conditions imposed by AICTE. Hence
\nthe procedure for obtaining affiliation and any conditions which can
\nbe imposed by the University, could not be inconsistent with the
\nprovisions of the Central Act. The University could not in any event
\nhave sought for approval of the State Government which could only
\ngive its views to the University. The so-called policy of the State
\nwas not a ground for refusing approval. The State could not have any
\npolicy outside the AICTE Act and if it had a policy, it should have
\nplaced the same before AICTE and that too before the AICT granted the
\npermission.  The Apex Court restored the direction to the University
\nto consider the application of the appellant for final affiliation
\nand that too without reference to the order of the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIn
\nProf. Yashpal  vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2005) 5 SCC 420, the Apex
\nmade the following observations on the status, powers, duties and
\nfunctions of the UGC :-\n<\/p>\n
?S33. \tThe consistent
\nand settled view of this Court, therefore, is that in spite of
\nincorporation of Universities as a legislative head being in the
\nState List, the whole gamut of the University which will include
\nteaching, quality of education being imparted, curriculum, standard
\nof examination and evaluation and also research activity being
\ncarried on will not come within the purview of the State legislature
\non account of a specific Entry on co-ordination and determination of
\nstandards in institutions for higher education or research and
\nscientific and technical education being in the Union List for which
\nthe Parliament alone is competent. It is the responsibility of the
\nParliament to ensure that proper standards are maintained in
\ninstitutions for higher education or research throughout the country
\nand also uniformity in standards is maintained.\n<\/p>\n
34. \tIn order to achieve
\nthe aforesaid purpose, the Parliament has enacted the University
\nGrants Commission Act. First para of the Statement of Objects and
\nReasons of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short “UGC
\nAct”) is illustrative and consequently it is being reproduced
\nbelow :\n<\/p>\n
“The Constitution of
\nIndia vests Parliament with exclusive authority in regard to
\n‘co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for
\nhigher education or research and scientific and technical
\ninstitutions’. It is obvious that neither co-ordination nor
\ndetermination of standards is possible unless the Central Government
\nhas some voice in the determination of standards of teaching and
\nexamination in Universities, both old and new. It is also necessary
\nto ensure that the available resources are utilized to the best
\npossible effect. The problem has become more acute recently on
\naccount of the tendency to multiply Universities. The need for a
\nproperly constituted Commission for determining and allocating to
\nUniversities funds made available by the Central Government has also
\nbecome more urgent on this account.\n<\/p>\n
35.\tIn the second para it
\nis said that the Commission will also have the power to recommend to
\nany University the measures necessary for the reform and improvement
\nof University education and to advise the University concerned upon
\nthe action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such
\nrecommendation. The Commission will act as an expert body to advise
\nthe Central Government on problems connected with the co- ordination
\nof facilities and maintenance of standards in Universities.\n<\/p>\n
36. \tThe preamble of the
\nUGC Act says – an Act to make provision for the co-ordination and
\ndetermination of standards in Universities and for that purpose to
\nestablish a University Grants Commission. Section 2(f) of this Act
\ndefines a University and it means a University established or
\nincorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State
\nAct, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with
\nthe University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in
\naccordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act.
\nClause 12 provides that it shall be the general duty of the
\nCommission to take, in consultation with the Universities or other
\nbodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the
\npromotion and co-ordination of University education and determination
\nand maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in
\nUniversities, and for the purpose of its functions under the Act, the
\nCommission may do all such acts enumerated in sub-sections (a) to (j)
\nthereof.\n<\/p>\n
37.\tIt is important to
\nnote that in view of Section 22 of UGC Act, the right of conferring
\nor granting degree can be exercised only by University or an
\ninstitution deemed to be University under Section 3 of the aforesaid
\nAct or institution especially empowered by an Act of Parliament to
\nconfer or grant degrees.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIn
\n Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma & Ors. vs.
\nChancellor, MJP Rohilkhand University,<\/a> (2007) 6 SCC 35 (paras  18 to\n<\/p>\n
20), strongly relied upon by the learned Government Pleader, the Apex
\nCourt held that study centres recognized  by a University cannot be
\npermitted to be operated beyond the territorial area of the
\nUniversity. ?SEach University in the country  which is recognized
\nunder the University Grants Commission Act  must have their own
\nterritorial jurisdiction save and except for the Central Universities
\nor specified in the legislative or parliamentary Act.   … …   A
\nstatutory authority, it is well known, must act within the four
\ncorners of the statute.  A fortiori it has to operate within the
\nboundaries of the territories within which it is to operate under the
\nstatute.  Such territorial jurisdiction of the university must be
\nmaintained as otherwise chaos would be created.??\n<\/p>\n
13.\tOn
\na review of the above authorities, there can be no doubt about the
\nsettled legal principle that so far as co-ordination and
\ndetermination of the standards in  institutions for higher education
\nare concerned,  the subject is exclusively covered by Entry 66 of
\nList I of Schedule VII to the Constitution and the State has no power
\nto encroach upon the legislative power of Parliament in the State
\nlevel.   Similarly, when the subject is covered by Entry 25 of List
\nIII of the said Schedule, there is a concurrent power of Parliament
\nas well as State Legislatures and appropriate Act can be made by the
\nState Legislature subject to limitations and restrictions under the
\nConstitution.  However, the controversy which is the subject matter
\nof the present petitions arises in a different context than the
\nfactual backdrop and the legal framework in which the questions came
\nup for consideration before the Apex Court in  Sant Dnyaneshwar case
\nand in Jaya Gokul case relied upon by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nSant Dnyaneshwar case, (2006) 9 SCC 1, recognition was granted by the
\nNational Council of Teachers Education which is the only competent
\nbody for granting such recognition under the NCTE Act, which gives
\noverriding effect to the powers of the National Council of Teachers
\nEducation in the matter of grant of recognition.  Similarly in the
\ncase of Jaya Gokul Education Trust, (2000) 5 SCC 231, All India
\nCouncil of Technical Education (AICTE) is the competent apex
\nbody upon which similar powers are conferred by the AICTE Act.  The
\nHon’ble Supreme Court has held in the aforesaid decisions that when
\nsuch apex professional body constituted under the relevant statute
\ngrants recognition to an educational institution, the State
\nGovernment cannot exercise veto power by refusing to grant NOC for
\neducational institution.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIn
\nthe facts of these two petitions, however, the petitioner ?
\ninstitution is  not covered by such a Central legislation.  The
\npetitioners are seeking affiliation to SNDT University, Mumbai
\nestablished under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.  There is
\nno Central legislation establishing any national level apex body for
\ngranting recognition to institutions in the fields of library science
\nand social work.  Hence, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the
\neducational institutions which were petitioners before the Apex Court
\nin  Sant Dnyaneshwar case (supra) and in Jaya Gokul case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\npetitioners’ cases are accordingly not examined by any such apex
\ntechnical body established under a statute nor is there any question
\nof examination of the petitioners’ cases by the University Grant
\nCommission which is established under the UGC Act for overseeing the
\nperformance of the universities as such and for providing them
\nfinancial grants.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIn
\nKurmanchal Institute case (2007) 6 SCC 35, the territorial
\njurisdiction of the respondent University was confined to seven
\ndistricts, but the appellant study centre situate in Nainital (not
\nfalling in any of the said Districts, but in fact outside U.P) was
\nstarted with the permission of the Government of U.P. to run the
\ndiploma and certificate courses of the University through distance
\neducation mode. However, the Chancellor of the University disapproved
\nthe same and directed that  all the activities related to such
\ndistance education programmes be closed immediately and the students
\ngot enrolled for the programmes  be  permitted to participate only in
\nthe correspondence courses.  The Chancellor’s order was questioned
\nbefore the High Court.  The petition was dismissed by the High Court
\nand in appeal filed by the study centre, the observations relied upon
\nby learned Government Pleader Mr Sunit Shah (quoted in para 12
\nhereinabove) were made by the Apex Court to ensure that the
\nterritorial jurisdiction of the University must be maintained. On the
\nother hand, the statute under which the SNDT University, a statutory
\nUniversity recognized by the University Grants Commission, is
\nestablished confers extra territorial jurisdiction on the University
\nsubject to approval by the Government of State where the educational
\ninstitution is situate.  Even while the provisions of Section 5 of
\nthe North Gujarat University Act provide that an educational
\ninstitution situate  in the Districts of Sabarkantha, Banaskantha and
\nMehsana (Mehsana District now divided into Mehsana and Patan) cannot
\nbe affiliated to a University other than the North Gujarat
\nUniversity, without sanction of the State Government and the North
\nGujarat University, these provisions cannot be read as conferring
\nabsolute unbridled powers on the Government of Gujarat and the North
\nGujarat University to refuse to grant NOC merely on the ground that
\nthe University to which affiliation is sought is situate outside the
\nState of Gujarat.  The Government of Gujarat will have to examine not
\nonly the credentials of the University, but also the facts of each
\ncase for the purpose of taking a decision whether or not to grant NOC
\nto an educational institution for affiliation to any other University
\non its own merits and not by imposing the blanket ban upon
\nconsideration of such application.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tWe
\nalso find in the introductory part of the Government of Gujarat
\nResolution dated 4.10.2007 that in principle the State Government
\ncannot have any objection if the educational institution desires to
\nstart a college in the State with affiliation to a University situate
\nin another State, but the two factors which weighed with the State
\nGovernment for imposing a blanket ban on affiliation to a University
\noutside the State are (i) when such a college can be established with
\naffiliation to a University situate within the State and such
\nUniversity within the State is ready and willing to give affiliation
\nto the proposed college, and (ii) on account of affiliation of a
\ncollege in Gujarat to a university outside the State, the effective
\nmonitoring\/regulation of the State Government with regard to
\nnorms\/standards of education, administration or fee structure cannot
\nbe done and such monitoring can be done effectively and efficiently
\nif the college is affiliated to a university situate within the
\nState.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs
\nfar as the first ground is concerned, the provisions of Section 5(1)
\nof the North Gujarat Act themselves do not contain any blanket ban
\nand all that they provide is that affiliation to a university outside
\nthe territorial limits of the North Gujarat University can be sought
\nwith the sanction of the State Government and the North Gujarat
\nUniversity.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThe
\nonly other factor which weighed with the State Government for
\nimposing such a blanket ban is the difficulties likely to be faced by
\nthe State Government in monitoring an educational institution within
\nthe State of Gujarat after its affiliation to a University situate
\noutside the State.   This apprehension is, prima facie, not without
\nany basis, because under the provisions of the North Gujarat
\nUniversity Act, the University has only the power to recommend but
\nnot to grant the affiliation, and that it is only the State
\nGovernment which is vested with the power to grant an institution
\naffiliation to the North Gujarat University under Section 35 of the
\nAct.  Similar provisions are to be found in the the Saurashtra
\nUniversity Act,  the South Gujarat University Act, the Bhavnagar
\nUniversity Act and the Gujarat University Act.  While exercising the
\npowers under the aforesaid statutory provisions, the State Government
\ncertainly exercises considerable powers for deciding upon the
\nsuitability or otherwise of an educational institution for the
\npurpose of affiliation to the concerned University within the State.
\nWe, therefore, appreciate the anxiety of the State Government that
\nthe State Government may not be able to exercise such power when the
\neducational institution is affiliated to a University outside the
\nState.\n<\/p>\n
\tBut
\nthe provisions of Section 105 of the Maharashtra Universities Act,
\n1994 themselves contemplate that the SNDT University can grant
\naffiliation to a college situate outside the State of Maharashtra
\nwith the approval of the Government of the State in which the
\nproposed college is situate.  This itself confers power on the
\nGovernment of Gujarat to consider on merits of each individual case
\nwhether to grant No Objection Certificate to a college proposed to be
\nset up in the State of Gujarat for affiliation to the SNDT
\nUniversity.\n<\/p>\n
\tMoreover,
\nin the facts of these cases, the apprehension voiced in the
\nGovernment Resolution dated 4.10.2007 need not worry the State
\nGovernment as Mr Mitul Shelat, learned counsel for the SNDT
\nUniversity as well as Mr YN Oza, learned counsel for the petitioners
\nhave stated that their respective clients have no objection to the
\nGovernment of Gujarat examining whether the educational institutions
\nhave adequate infrastructure, teaching faculties, administrative
\nmachinery and have also no objection to the Government of Gujarat
\nregulating fee structure for the respective courses.  The learned
\ncounsel, however, state that since the SNDT University conducts an
\nAll India Common Entrance Test for admissions to SNDT University and
\ncolleges affiliated to it, the State Government will not be permitted
\nto have any say in the matter of admissions to the colleges
\naffiliated to SNDT University.  We also record the statements of the
\nlearned counsel for the SNDT university and the petitioners that the
\npowers of the State Government to do such monitoring are not confined
\nonly to the stage of issuance of NOC and that if and when the State
\nGovernment finds that the concerned college commits breach of any of
\nthe terms and conditions of the NOC or the State Government otherwise
\nthinks it fit on a rational ground, the State Government also has the
\npower to withdraw the NOC subsequently which would result into
\nadverse consequences for the concerned college in the matter of
\ncontinuance\/renewal of the affiliation to the SNDT University.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tWe
\naccordingly allow these petitions and direct the State of Gujarat to
\nconsider, within three weeks from today, the petitioners’
\napplications for NOC without being inhibited by the blanket ban
\nimposed by the Government Resolution dated 4.10.2007, but after
\ntaking into consideration the above statements made by the learned
\ncounsel for the SNDT University and the learned counsel for the
\npetitioners that it is open to the Government of Gujarat to examine
\nand monitor whether the educational institutions applying for NOC
\nhave adequate infrastructure, teaching faculties, administrative
\nmachinery and fee structure in consonance with the Government
\npolicies which are applicable to other private unaided colleges
\nwithin the State of Gujarat.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t[K.S.\n<\/p>\n
RADHAKRISHNAN, C.J.]\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.S.\n<\/p>\n
SHAH, J.]\t\t<\/p>\n
zakir\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Gnanyog vs State on 26 September, 2008 Author: Mr. K.S.Radhakrishnan,&Nbsp;Honourable Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9840\/2008 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9840 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9841 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGnanyog vs State on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gnanyog vs State on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-17T05:04:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gnanyog vs State on 26 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-17T05:04:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5414,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Gnanyog vs State on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-17T05:04:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gnanyog vs State on 26 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gnanyog vs State on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gnanyog vs State on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-17T05:04:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gnanyog vs State on 26 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-17T05:04:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008"},"wordCount":5414,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008","name":"Gnanyog vs State on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-17T05:04:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gnanyog-vs-state-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gnanyog vs State on 26 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187564","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187564"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187564\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}