Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed by MLA Arif Masood as the Secretary of Aman Education Society (‘the Society’) of Indira Priyadarshani College (‘the College’), Bhopal, against the impugned order wherein Barkatullah University (‘BU’), Bhopal, was directed that to de-affiliate the College, the Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan and Pradeep Mittal, JJ., held that there was no document on record satisfying the requirement of solvency of the College, i.e., the College had a free run for 20 years without any State intervention. The Court also remarked that Arif should have been jailed in 2004 itself for placing a fabricated document for the purpose of solvency and receiving affiliation for his College on the basis of that document.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Bhopal, to register an FIR against Arif Masood and such other persons, who might appear to have been complicit on the State’s behalf in facilitating Arif in this alleged offence, within three days. The Court also requested the Director General of Police to consider constituting a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’), which would oversee the police investigation.
Background
The College contended that it was established in 1995 and has educated over 70,000 students in the last 30 years. The College had 25 courses, 70 staff members, and 1057 students who were presently receiving education. Thus, it was a running institution.
The State contended that in 2004, when the College sought affiliation with BU, a show cause notice was issued to the College whereby the solvency certificate submitted by it at the time of seeking affiliation was found to be forged. The College submitted a reply to the Education Department stating that it had outsourced the task of getting a solvency certificate, and the agents misled them. Consequently, the forged property document was provided to show solvency.
In 2005, a second show cause notice with similar allegations was issued to the College based on a sale deed of another property. At this point in time, the College furnished a fresh solvency certificate. Thereafter, in 2008, a complaint was filed against the College on the same issue.
Furthermore, in 2009, a show cause notice was issued to the College by the Education Department, and a detailed inquiry was conducted. The conclusion was that no intervention was to be made as the issue was a subject matter of a case pending in the High Court, regarding the location of the property. In 2011, another complaint was filed, and an inquiry was conducted. The Education Department concluded that no case was made out against the College.
Again in 2024, a fresh complaint, a replica of the complaint made in 2008, was filed against the College. Thereafter, the State sought necessary documents from the College relating to 2005, which were duly delivered by the College. However, the College submitted a representation to the Education Department stating that a similar complaint was filed in 2008 and that the present complaint was filed to harass them. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted into the functioning of the College, and the recommendation to de-affiliate the College was made.
Consequent to the recommendation, a show cause notice was issued to the College by the Education Department. After the College was provided with the inquiry report and supporting documents, and granted time to file a reply, the impugned order was passed.
Hence, the present petition.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that certain undisputed facts of this case revealed a shocking state of affairs. The first time that the College sought affiliation, the document that was given for proving solvency was undisputedly a fabricated document, but the blame was sought to be laid at the doorstep of the ‘alleged agents’ to whom this task was allegedly ‘outsourced’.
The Court further noted that the document provided by the College to the State to establish solvency was a property sale deed dating back to 2001, wherein the purchaser was the Society through its Secretary, Arif Masood. However, upon verification of the said document, it was found to be fabricated, way back in 2004 itself, as the original sale deed disclosed that the seller was the same, but the purchaser was Rubina Masood, wife of Arif Masood. The document was tampered with and offered as proof of solvency.
The Court noted that the State came to know of the fraud in 2004 itself, but for reasons that prima facie appeared to be pernicious, condoned the alleged offence under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), which were prima facie made out from Arif’s actions, and gave him a second chance to place on record a genuine document to prove solvency.
The Court further noted that there was another document placed by the Society before the State. It was a lease deed dated 1999 regarding a plot that had a constructed building. Verification by the Registrar revealed that the lease deed was registered with the State. However, the Court stated that the rules required that the solvency certificate must relate to a property over which the College had ownership title. Thereafter, the College allegedly purchased the same property by a sale deed, wherein the buyer was the Society. Verification of the sale deed by the Sub-Registrar revealed that the sale deed was not registered at the Sub-Registrar’s Office. Thus, the Court noted that the second property placed as consideration for solvency was also a forged and fabricated document.
Hence, the Court held that there was no document on record satisfying the requirement of solvency of the College, i.e., the College had a free run for 20 years.
“The facts disclose a shocking state of affairs of unbridled and unapologetic corruption existing in the State.”
Noting the aforesaid, the Court remarked that Arif should have been jailed in 2004 itself for placing a fabricated document for solvency and receiving affiliation for his College based on that document.
“Instead, the State was outrageously magnanimous to condone his crime and give another opportunity to him to place another document to establish solvency, ‘preferably genuine’ this time round (sarcasm intended). However, Arif, incorrigible as he was (as contended by the State), yet again preferred another sale deed, which, according to the State, also happened to be a fabricated document, as the copy of the same was not registered in the records of the Office of Sub-Registrar. The fabricated document was accepted by the State.”
The Court further noted that, interestingly, the second sale deed was never verified by the State for 20 years after it was provided to prove solvency, till its verification by the Sub-Registrar in 2024.
“The College had a free run for two decades till he ran out of luck in 2024, which raises the question as to how Arif survived without any intervention by the State for twenty years and why his luck ran out in 2024?”
The Court remarked that prima facie, it appeared that Arif was a blue-eyed boy of the dispensation that existed before 2024. The party in power in the State has been the same for more than two decades. However, the captain of the ship changed in the year 2023, which was when the woes of the College commenced. The Court added that the action taken by the State against Arif vide the impugned order directing BU to de-affiliate the College appeared to be a slap on the wrist.
“To date, there had never been any move by the State to register an FIR against Arif, who was the Secretary of the Society running the College, or the Officers, who held responsible positions on that day and whose duty it was, once the fraud was uncovered, to proceed immediately against him. Instead, they condoned his crime and were gracious enough to permit him to place other documents for the purpose of establishing solvency.”
Furthermore, the Court remarked that the actual sufferers were the students, who paid for education in the College, and presently, there were more than 1,000 students receiving instructions in various disciplines from the College. Under the circumstances, the Court directed that, as an interim measure, the College was permitted to continue, and de-affiliation was stayed for the time being. However, the College shall not take any fresh students from the date of this order for the next academic session without the permission of the Court.
Regarding Arif, the Court stated that for the alleged offence committed by him, in connivance with the Officers who permitted him to place two fraudulent documents one after the other, he deserved to be proceeded against. In this regard, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Bhopal, to register an FIR against Arif Masood and such other persons, who might appear to have been complicit on the State’s behalf in facilitating Arif in this alleged offence, within three days from the date of the order being uploaded on the Court website.
Opining that, prima facie, Arif might be politically well connected, the Court deemed it essential to constitute an SIT, which would oversee the police investigation. In this regard, this Court requested the Director General of Police to consider constituting an SIT, headed by Sanjiv Shami, A.D.G. Telecommunications P.H.Q., Bhopal, and two other Officers selected by him as per his confidence and trust, which would oversee the investigation of this case and bring the guilty to book.
The Court hoped that the SIT would be able to oversee the investigation and take it to its fruition by filing the necessary report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, within three months from the date of this order.
The matter was listed for 22-09-2025.
[Indira Priyadarshani College Bhopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, WP No. 21879 of 2025, decided on 18-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Vivek Krishna Tankha, Advocates Aryan Shukla and Satyam Agrawal
For the respondent: Additional Advocate General Harpreet S. Ruprah and Panel lawyer Akash Malpani
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
