The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed the rejection order issued by the Union of India whereby approval for the establishment of an Off-Campus Centre at Hosur, Tamil Nadu was denied. The Court held that the communication refusing the NOC was not dispatched within the stipulated 60-day period, thereby invoking the deeming provision under UGC Regulations.
The petitioner contended that the affiliating University had refused No Objection Certificate (NOC) in terms of UGC Regulations specifically Regulation 8(3) of the UGC (Institutions deemed to be University) Regulations, 2023, but the said communication was ante-dated in as much as it was dispatched only on 14.12.2023 and received by the petitioner on 15.12.2023. The petitioner submitted that, as per the regulations, the affiliating University was obliged to grant ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) to the institution deemed-to-be university within a maximum period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the request, failing which it shall be presumed that the affiliating University has no objection to the application made by the institution Deemed-to-be University for establishing an Off-Campus Centre.
The key issue that arose for consideration was whether merely taking a decision within the stipulated period, and not communicating the same would satisfy the regulatory requirement. The respondents contended that the requirement is only to decide on the application for NOC within the period of 60 days and there is no requirement of communicating the same within such stipulated period.
The court observed that taking a decision within a period of 60 days, and not communicating the same to institution deemed-to-be university would have no meaning. In the opinion of the Court, an order lying in the file of any authority can be changed at any time before it is dispatched. The decision taken therein, in that case, could only be considered as a draft or a provisional decision. The order would come into effect only when it is actually communicated to the applicant/concerned person. The court further observed that since the decision was not communicated within the period of 60 days, it shall be presumed that the affiliating University has no objection to the petitioners’ application for establishing an Off-Campus Centre. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents in State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram[1] and Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors[2], which established that decisions have no legal effect until communicated. The court also noted that the deeming provision was created to expedite the NOC process and prevent unnecessary delays by affiliating universities.
Justice Vikas Mahajan held that the upshot of the above discussion is that the present petition deserved to be allowed, and impugned order passed by Union of India, as well as, the communication issued by the University could not be sustained. Accordingly, the same were quashed and set aside. As a result, the UGC and Union of India were directed to process petitioner’s application for establishing its Off-Campus Centre in Hosur, Tamil Nadu and pass a fresh order in light of this judgment, within a period of two weeks from today.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Mr. Amit Chaddha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma, Ms. Harsha Tripathi, Ms. Kanishka Singh and Mr. Subornadeep Bhattacharjee, Advs.
Respondents: Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha and Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Advs. for R-1/UGC. Mr. G. Balaji and Ms. Arzu Paul, Advs. for R-3.
[1] (1969) 3 SCC 28
[2] 1962 SCC OnLine SC 11