Kerala High Court: In a writ petition filed by the Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee (‘the Committee’), challenging the decision of Kannur University, based on the legal opinion of the University’s Standing Counsel and the resolution passed at the Syndicate meeting held on 21-06-2024, whereby ownership of Sharaf Arts and Science College, Padne, was declared to vest with the ‘Khidmath Organisation of Padne’, a Single Judge Bench of DK Singh, J., quashed the impugned order. The Court held that Kannur University had unlawfully reviewed its own earlier decision and improperly transferred ownership from the Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee to the ‘Khidmath Organisation of Padne.
The Court further emphasised that a quasi-judicial authority does not possess an inherent power to review its own orders; such power must be expressly conferred by the statute under which the authority operates. Any exercise of review power without such statutory backing is ultra vires and void for want of jurisdiction.
Background
The Committee filed a writ petition challenging the decision of Kannur University. The decision was based on legal opinion from the University’s Standing Counsel and a resolution passed in the Syndicate meeting held on 21-06-2024, wherein the ownership of Sharaf Arts and Science College, Padne, was declared to vest with the Khidmath Organisation of Padne.
The case had a prolonged litigation history. The Committee, registered under the Societies Registration Act on 11-10-2006, had purchased several properties before its incorporation and claimed to own and manage the college. In 2006, Kannur University informed that according to university records, the educational agency was Khidmath Organisation. The Committee sought clarification, after which a two-member committee was constituted, ultimately recommending recognition of the Committee as the rightful agency.
Acting on the recommendation, the Vice Chancellor issued an order on 20-10-2015 revising the name of the educational agency to Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee and reinstating its provisional affiliation. This decision was challenged, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 11-12-2017, citing pending civil suits and holding that no relief could be granted at that stage. The decision was upheld by the Division Bench and subsequent review and Special Leave Petition were also dismissed or withdrawn.
In related proceedings, the Khidmath Organisation’s attempt to pay land tax was rejected by the District Collector, and their writ petition challenging the decision was also dismissed. The Court held that mutation entries did not establish ownership. Several other writ petitions filed by the Khidmath Organisation, and an appeal to the Chancellor, were also dismissed or withdrawn.
Finally, despite the long-standing recognition of the Committee as the educational agency, the University Registrar, via order dated 05-07-2024, informed the Committee that the ownership of the college was deemed to vest with the Khidmath Organisation, prompting the present challenge.
Issues
- Whether the respondent University was legally entitled to review its earlier orders dated 20-10-2015 and 21-06-2020, whereby the Vice Chancellor had directed that the name of the educational agency be revised to Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee, Padne, especially when both the petition and review against the said decision had been dismissed by the University on the ground that it could not act contrary to the decisions of the High Court and the Chancellor.
-
Whether the impugned order passed by the University is unlawful, without jurisdiction, and contrary to established legal principles.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that, based on the facts outlined above, it was evident that it had not interfered with the two orders previously passed by the University, despite multiple writ petitions filed by Khidmath Organisation challenging them. The Court further noted that the related civil suits remained undecided and were still pending adjudication. In light of these circumstances, the Court found no justification to interfere with the impugned order in the present writ petition.
The Court reiterated that a statutory body or authority does not possess the power of review unless such power is expressly conferred upon it by the governing statute. In the present case, the University had acted beyond its jurisdiction by effectively assuming the role of an appellate authority over judgments rendered by the Court in multiple writ petitions. It proceeded to review and reverse its own order dated 20-10-2015, despite lacking any statutory authority to do so.
The Court noted that both it and the Chancellor had consistently held that, unless the pending civil suits were adjudicated, no interference was warranted with the University’s decision recognising the petitioner as the educational agency of Sharaf Arts and Science College. The Court expressed its inability to understand what had changed to justify the reversal in the impugned order, wherein Khidmath Organisation was recognised as the educational agency and owner of the College. No change in circumstances was pointed out by Khidmath Organisation, nor was any provision cited from the Kannur University Act or its Statutes that would confer review powers on the University.
The Court highlighted that a quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order unless such power is expressly granted by statute. Quasi-judicial bodies derive their powers solely from the enabling legislation and allowing them to exercise review powers without statutory backing would contravene the principle of separation of powers and risk undermining legislative intent. In the absence of an express statutory provision, decisions of such authorities are deemed final and subject only to appeal or judicial review, not self-review. The Court cautioned that permitting otherwise would result in legal uncertainty and endless litigation.
The Court concluded that the legal position was unequivocally clear, that a quasi-judicial authority does not possess an inherent power to review its own orders. Such power must be expressly conferred by the statute under which the authority functions. Any attempt to exercise a power of review without statutory backing is ultra vires and void for want of jurisdiction.
Since the Kannur University Act and the Statutes framed thereunder do not vest the University with the authority to review its earlier orders, the impugned order was held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the said order was set aside.
Therefore, the writ petition was allowed.
[Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v State of Kerala, WP(C) NO. 24503 OF 2024, decided on 16-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: P.K.RAVISANKAR , S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
For Respondents: V VENUGOPAL GP, SURESH KUMAR KODOTH, I.V.PRAMOD, P.M.SANEER, SUKARNAN; MR KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR), TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
