Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL: 280/2007

Attorney(S)

— Mr. R. Venkataramani, Senior Advocate with Ms. Neela Gokhale, Advocate.

Acts

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — Letters Patent Appeal by Prof. Ramesh Chandra

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment, delivered by Sanjiv Khanna, J., concerns a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Prof. Ramesh Chandra against the Order dated 27 February 2007 which disposed of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11287/2007 brought by the University of Delhi. The Single Judge's order had held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (the Commission) is a recommendatory body and that observations in the Commission's Order dated 9 May 2006 in respect of the functionaries of the University of Delhi were not binding.

Relevant background facts recorded in the opinion include that the appellant is involved in several litigations with the University of Delhi pending in the Allahabad High Court and this Court. During the pendency of those litigations the Commission (constituted under Article 338 of the Constitution) issued its findings/investigation and recommendations dated 9 May 2006, directing (inter alia) withdrawal of specified Executive Council resolutions, reinstatement/continuation of Prof. Ramesh Chandra as Director of ACER under an earlier notification, withdrawal of certain letters issued by UGC and MHRD officers, and directing various authorities (including the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, UGC and MHRD officers) to ensure implementation and to file action taken affidavits within two weeks.

The University of Delhi challenged the Commission's Order by filing a writ petition which was disposed of by the Single Judge on 27 February 2007 holding that the Commission's directions were not binding. The present Letters Patent Appeal challenges that Single Judge order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes constituted under Article 338 of the Constitution of India is an adjudicatory body capable of issuing binding and executable orders (including directions akin to decrees or injunctions) against the University of Delhi and its functionaries, or whether the Commission's findings and recommendations are recommendatory in nature.
Whether Clause 8 of Article 338 (which confers certain powers of a civil court on the Commission) should be read as empowering the Commission to pass binding orders, injunctions or decrees enforceable like civil court judgments.
Procedural/limitation point: whether the Letters Patent Appeal was time-barred (the court noted an approximate delay of 16 days).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as advanced by Mr. P. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel)

Reliance on Article 338 of the Constitution of India: Clause 5(b) entitles the Commission to enquire into specific complaints regarding deprivation of rights and safeguards of Scheduled Castes.
Reliance on Clause 8: the Commission is empowered to investigate matters covered by Clauses 5(a) and 5(b) and Clause 8 confers upon it the powers of a civil court in respect of matters enumerated therein; from this it was submitted that the Commission is not merely recommendatory and that its directions are final and binding on the University of Delhi.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of opposing parties' specific legal arguments in this appeal (for example, the precise submissions made by the University of Delhi in the writ petition are not set out in the text).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
All India Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 606	Interpretation of Clause 8 of Article 338: the Commission is given limited procedural powers of a civil court while investigating/enquiring; it does not have powers such as issuing temporary or permanent injunctions.	The court relied on this Supreme Court decision to support the conclusion that Clause 8 confers only limited procedural civil-court powers for investigation and does not enable the Commission to adjudicate and pass binding decrees or injunctions.
Dr. (Ms.) Deepshikha Jiwan Pandit v. NCERT, ILR (2003) 2 Del. 131	Consideration of Clauses 5 and 8 of Article 338 and the nature of the Commission's power to enquire and report; the Commission's report held to be recommendatory in nature.	The court cited this Division Bench decision as consistent authority that the Commission can enquire and make reports but those reports are recommendatory; the decision also observed that the advice of the Commission should not be ignored by authorities.
Gulmarg Restaurant… v. Delhi Development Authority…, ILR (2005) 1 Del. 508	Observation that within the constitutional scheme of Article 338, observations/directions of the Commission are recommendatory; they cannot properly determine matters (for example, transfer of property or fixation of price) that are not within such Commission's remit.	The court relied on this decision to reinforce that directions/observations by the Commission are only recommendatory in nature and cannot be equated with orders of a civil court; this supported dismissal of the contention that the Commission's directions were binding.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the submissions and the text of Article 338. It analysed Clause 8 and observed that the powers conferred by Clause 8 are limited and procedural in nature: they include summoning and enforcing attendance of persons, examination on oath, discovery and production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavits, requisitioning public documents or copies from courts or offices, issuing commissions for examination of witnesses and documents, and such other powers as may be conferred by rule made by the President (no such rule being placed before the court).

The court reasoned that these powers are procedural civil-court powers given to the Commission for the limited purpose of investigation and inquiry into complaints under Clauses 5(a) and 5(b). The court emphasised that Article 338 does not give the Commission the power to adjudicate disputes and pass binding or executable decrees akin to those of a civil court, nor to issue injunctions.

The court further pointed to Clauses 6 and 7 of Article 338 which require the Commission to submit its report to Parliament and to forward copies to State authorities, along with a memorandum explaining action taken or proposed and reasons for non-acceptance. On this statutory scheme the court concluded that the reports and recommendations of the Commission are recommendatory in nature and are not equivalent to enforceable civil court decrees.

The court supported these textual conclusions by reference to binding and persuasive authorities: the Supreme Court's decision in All India Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association (which held the powers in Clause 8 are limited and do not include injunction powers), the Division Bench decision in Deepshikha (which observed the recommendatory character of the Commission's reports and that its advice should not be ignored), and the Gulmarg Restaurant decision (which explicitly treated Commission observations as recommendatory).

Applying these principles to the present facts, the court found no error in the Single Judge's conclusion that the Commission's order of 9 May 2006 did not have binding effect on the University of Delhi or its functionaries. The court therefore concluded that there was no occasion to interfere with the Single Judge's order.

Additionally, the court recorded a procedural observation that the Letters Patent Appeal was barred by limitation by about 16 days; although notice normally might have been issued on that point, the court dismissed the appeal on merits as well, so no separate relief on the limitation point was ordered. All pending applications related to the appeal were disposed of.

Holding and Implications

Core Holding: The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. The Single Judge's order dated 27 February 2007 is affirmed to the extent that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes' findings and recommendations are recommendatory and not binding or enforceable like decrees or injunctions of a civil court.

Implications and direct effects:

The directions/recommendations in the Commission's Order dated 9 May 2006, insofar as they purport to bind the University of Delhi or its functionaries, do not have binding or executable effect under the Court's present holding.
The Letters Patent Appeal was found to be time-barred by about 16 days; however the court dismissed the appeal on merits and disposed of all pending applications related to the appeal.
No broader novel legal precedent was created by this decision; the court applied existing constitutional interpretation and case law to reaffirm that the Commission's reports are recommendatory and that Clause 8 confers limited procedural civil-court powers for investigation/enquiry only.

This summary is confined to the information expressly contained in the provided opinion. Where the opinion did not set out detailed party submissions or broader policy implications, this summary does not supply those details.

Show full summary ...

Professor Ramesh Chandra v. University Of Delhi And Anr. S

Sanjiv Khanna, J.:— The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Prof. Ramesh Chandra (hereinafter referred to as the appellant, for short) against the Order dated 27th February, 2007 disposing of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11287/2007 filed by the University of Delhi, inter alia, holding that the National Commission of Scheduled Caste (hereinafter referred to as the Commission, for short) is a recommendatory body and any observation made by it in it's order, dated 9th may, 2006 with regard to the functionaries of University of Delhi will not be of binding nature.

2. From the statement of facts filed by the appellant it is apparent that he is involved in several litigations with the University of Delhi pending in Allahabad High Court and this Court.

3. During the pendency of these litigations, the Commission constituted under Article 338 of the Constitution of India passed Order dated 9th May, 2006, the operative portion of which reads as under:—

i. Vice-Chancellor and Registrar, Delhi University must ensure that the aforesaid three impugned Executive Council Resolutions of 17th October, 2005 relating to Prof. Ramesh Chandra, are withdrawn with immediate effect.

ii. Prof, Ramesh Chandra be allowed to continue to function as Director, ACER in consonance with the Notification no. Estab.III/BRAC/95/9126 of 30th May, 1995, issued by the University of Delhi without fear.

iii. As committed by the Secretary, UGC before the commission the letter no.F.3-1/2002 (CU), dated 4th August, 2005 addressed to the Vice Chancellor be withdrawn forthwith.

iv. The letters dated 29th July, 2005 and 23rd December, or any other letter written by Sh. Sunil Kumar, IAS, Joint Secretary (Higher Education), Ministry of Human Resource Development, to Dr. Ved Prakash, Former-Secretary, University Grants Commission, and Sh.Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Chief Minister of Haryana, respectively be withdrawn forthwith.

v. The Commission also directs the Joint Secretary (Higher Education), Ministry of HRD that in future such errors resulting in injury being caused to any member of the Scheduled Caste community should not be committed, as the MHRD is responsible to ensure social justice to all in the country.

vi. The Commission farther recommended that the UGC must ensure social justice to all citizens of the country and as a body monitoring Higher Education in the country should suo moto assume more responsibility towards the cause of upliftment of Scheduled Castes.

vii. Copy of the Findings of Investigation and Recommendations be sent to Sh. R.S Gaval, Chairman, Parliamentary Forum for SC/STs for information and further necessary action, if any, as he is the person who brought this matter to the notice of the Commission.

viii. Copy of the Findings of Investigation and Recommendations be sent to the Visitor, University of Delhi (Hon'ble President of India), Chancellor, University of Delhi (Hon'ble Vice-President of India), Hon'ble Prime Ministers of India, Pro-Chancellor, University of Delhi (Hon'ble Chief Justice of India), Hon'ble Minister of Human Resource Development, to ensure that the above said recommendations/directions are implemented by the UGC, MHRD and the University of Delhi in letter and spirit without any delay.

ix. The Vice-Chancellor and Registrar, University of Delhi, the Chairman & Secretary, UGC and the Secretary, Higher Education, Ministry of HRD, are hereby directed to ensure implementation of the above recommendations/directions and give action taken report on an affidavit within two weeks from the date of the issue of the Findings of Investigation and Recommendations, to the Commission”.

4. Aggrieved, the University of Delhi filed a writ petition in this Court which was disposed of vide Order dated 27th February, 2007, inter alia, holding that the Commission cannot pass any order of binding nature as it is a recommendatory body. It has been further held that the directions given in the Order are not of binding nature. However, it has been clarified that so far as the order does not deal with the University of Delhi or its functionaries, it shall remain undisturbed.

5. Mr. P. Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel had drawn our attention to Article 338 of the Constitution of India and had stated that under Clause 5 sub-clause (b), the Commission is entitled to enquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation of rights and safeguards available to the Scheduled Castes. He had also drawn our attention to Clause 8 which empowers the Commission to investigate into matters covered by sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause 5 and confers power of a civil court in respect of matters enumerated therein. It was submitted that the Commission is not a recommendatory body and its directions are final and binding on the University of Delhi.

6. It is not possible to agree with the learned senior counsel that the Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution of India is an adjudicatory body which can issue binding directions or injunction orders. Clause 8 of Article 338 of the Constitution of India has conferred limited powers of a civil court on the Commission on matters relating to summoning and enforcing attendance of any person in India and examining him on oath, for discovery and production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavits, requisitioning any public document or copy thereof from any court or office, issuing commission for examination of witnesses and documents. It also has powers of a civil court in respect of matters which the President by a rule may confer. No such rule has been brought to our notice. While conferring limited powers of a civil court for some purposes. Article 338 has not given the Commission the power to adjudicate and pass binding and executable decrees like a civil court. The above powers are procedural powers vested with a Civil Court, which have been given to the Commission for the purpose of investigation and enquiry into the complaints in terms of sub-Clause (a) and (b) of Clause 5. A reading of Clauses 6 and 7 shows that the Commission is required to submit it's report, which is to be placed before each house of the Parliament along with the memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendation made by the said Commission and in case of non-acceptance the reasons for the same. In case the report or any part thereof relates to matter with which a State Government is concerned, a copy of the report is required to be forwarded to the Governor of the State who is required to lay the report before the legislature of the State along with memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on recommendation relating to the State and reasons for non-acceptance of the said recommendations. It is clear from the reading of Clauses 6-8 that the reports made by the Commission are recommendatory in nature and cannot be equated with decrees/orders passed by Civil Courts which are binding on the parties and can be enforced and executed. It cannot be said that the reports of the said Commission are alternative to the hierarchical judicial system envisaged under the Constitution of India.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of All India Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India reported in (1996) 6 SCC 606 examined Clause 8 of Article 338 of the Constitution of India and observed that while investigating a matter under sub-clause (a) or enquiring into a complaint under sub-clause (b) of Clause 5 of the said Article, the Commission has been given limited procedural powers of a civil court. It has been held that the said powers are limited by their nature and the Commission does not have any power like that of a civil court to issue temporary or permanent injunction. Such powers do not inhere in the Commission nor can such power be inferred or derived from reading of Clause 8 of Article 338 of the Constitution of India.

8. A Division Bench of this Court in Dr. (Ms.) Deepshikha Jiwan Pandit v. NCERT reported in ILR (2003) 2 Del. 131 had occasion to consider Clauses 5-and 8 of Article 338 of the Constitution of India and held that it appears that though the Commission has power to enquire into specific complaints and make it's report but the same is recommendatory in nature. However, the Division Bench left the matter at that stage as the counsel for the petitioner in the said case did not seriously contend that the “advice” of the Commission was mandatory and binding. It was however observed that the “advice” given by the Commission should not be ignored by the authorities.

9. A more direct judgment on the issue is in the case of Gulmarg Restaurant… v. Delhi Development Authority…. reported in ILR (2005) 1 Del. 508 in which it was observed as under:—

“29. It may be noticed that the appellant had even approached the National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and directions were issued on 02.08.1997 These directions were, however, issued in a pending disputed matter. In any case within the Constitutional Scheme of Article 338 of the Constitution of India, the observations of such a Commission can only be recommendatory in nature. The directions passed by the said Commission seek to transfer the property in favour of the appellant a price of Rs. 12,42,700/-, can hardly be acceptable as either the auction bid was rightly rejected or wrongly rejected. It would not proper for any other authority to determine the price. However, we are not required to deal any further with this issue since those are only recommendatory in nature.”

10. In view of the legal position, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the present Appeal is accordingly liable to be dismissed. We may also state here that the present Appeal is also barred by limitation by about 16 days. Normally, we would have issued notice on the said application but in view of the fact that on merits itself we do not find that any case for interference is made out, we have dismissed the appeal on merits. All pending applications are also disposed of.

Professor Ramesh Chandra v. University Of Delhi And Anr. S

Judgment Summary — Letters Patent Appeal by Prof. Ramesh Chandra

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as advanced by Mr. P. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Professor Ramesh Chandra v. University Of Delhi And Anr. S

Comments

We use cookies to improve your experience