K.P. Singh, J.@mdashPlaintiff Appellant was a student of B.A. in the year 1983-84 in Nanak Chand Anglo Sanskrit Degree College, Meerut
which was affiliated to Meerut University. His Roll Number was 560248. He had appeared at the B.A. Final examination and his result was
cancelled on the ground that he was found guilty of using unfair means. The Plaintiff had challenged the decision on the ground that he was not
afforded any reasonable opportunity to explain his stand, therefore, the suit for declaration that the decision of the sub-Committee regarding
cancellation of the Plaintiff''s examination of May, 1984 is void.
2. The claim of the Plaintiff was contested by the University on various grounds as is evident from the issues framed in the trial court''s judgment.
The trial court through its judgment dated 31.08.1985 accepted the claim of the Plaintiff and granted the declaration sought for. Aggrieved by the
decision of the trial court, Meerut University preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the first appellate court through its judgment dated
25.01.1986. Against the judgment of the appellate court the Plaintiff has preferred the above noted second appeal.
3. The appellate court has allowed the appeal on the ground that Section 69 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh Act
No. 10 of 1973) bars the Plaintiff''s suit, therefore, the trial court was wrong in giving decree to the Plaintiff.
4. Before me the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellant has contended that the lower appellate court has misconstrued and misunderstood the
provisions of Section 69 of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 10 of 1973. According to him the aforesaid Section only saves the officers from being
prosecuted for any action done Under the Act. In short, it has been emphasized before me that the decision of the Sub-Committee of the
University regarding cancellation of the Plaintiffs examination would not be covered by the provisions of Section 69 of the aforesaid Act. He has
referred to the provisions of Section 38-B and 39 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, Sections 49 and 49A of the
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and Section 42 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and he has vehemently
argued that the decision of the sub-committee of Meerut University cannot be held as barred by the provisions of Section 69 of Uttar Pradesh Act
No. 10 of 1973 because the aforesaid provision saves only officers from being prosecuted for the action done Under the Act. If Sections 68 and
69 of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 10 of 1973 are read together it is evident that the decision of any authority of the University could be examined by
the Chancellor and the decision of the University or any of its authorities would be covered by the provisions of Section 69 of the State Universities
Act mentioned above. 1 am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellant that the decision of the University
would not be covered by the provision of Section 69. Moreover, the comparison of Section 69 with other sections of different Acts relied upon by
the learned Counsel for the Appellant also leads me to the conclusion that the contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is not sound. The
wordings of Section 69 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act are wider than the provisions of Section 39 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and Section 49A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act. Assuming the contention raised on behalf of
the Appellant as correct, I think that the decision of the sub-committee would not ordinarily be examined by the Civil Court in view of the
provisions of Sections 68 and 69 of the State Universities Act. The learned Counsel during the course of argument has admitted that the
Chancellor could vary the decision of the Sub-Committee u/s 68 of the Universities Act. In this view of the matter I think that the learned Counsel
raised the contention before me only for the sake of contention otherwise it lacks merit.
5. The appellate Court while setting aside the judgment of the trial court has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1981 Uttar Pradesh
L.B.E.C 361 and in my opinion the lower appellate Court has misconstrued the scope of Section 69 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act,
1973. The learned Judge in the aforesaid ruling has indicated in para 7 as below:
Section 69 imposes bar on the maintainability of the suit challenging the action of the Bodies or authorities mentioned thereunder if the same has
been done in pursuance of the Act, or Rules or the Statutes or Ordinances made thereunder. If the action is ultra vires of the Act or Ordinances
and Statutes, the same may be liable to be challenged. But the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the propriety of the action taken against
and to assume function of a court of appeal and to set aside the same on taking the view that the action was improper. The Court cannot convert
itself into an enquiry committee and examine the charge levelled against the examinee. It cannot review the finding reached by the Statutory
authorities even if they be erroneous.
6. In the present case the trial Judge while deciding issue No. 1 has made the following observation at page 7 of Annexure III in the writ petition:
Lekin is vaad men prastut mamle men kagaz vadi ke kabze se nahi paya gaya na vadi ne use upyog hi kiya. Aisi surat men vadi ko apni isthiti kar
na sahi phir bhi apni isthiti samne rakhne ka pratyavedan (representation) dene ka avsar diya jana jaruri tha Yah prakritik nyaya ke siddhant ke liye
jaruri tha. Aisi surat men unfair means committee ka nirnaya jo vadi ko suchit kiya gaya tha aniymit wa avaidh tha.
7. The lower appellate court also in its impugned judgment dated 28.0l.1984 has made the following observation:
Yadyapi main is baat se sahmat hun ki janch samiti ne apne nirnaya prakritik niymon ke viruddh diya hai. Kyonki janch samiti ne is baat ko ispasht
nahin kiya hai ki jo kagaj ke parche pratyarthi vadi ke deks ke pas paye gaye unka anuchit prayog pratyarthi vadi ne kiya. Is baat ko bhi siddha
nahi kiya gaya hai ke kin paristhitiyon men likhi hui samagri pratyarthi vadi ke hath ke likhi hui hai. I baat ki sambhavana se inkar nahi kiya ja sakta
ki yae kagaz ke parche kisi anya vidyarthi ne vahan par phenke hon aur udan dasta ne unhen utha liya ho. Parantu janch samiti ke nirnaya ko
shunya karar dena aur us nirnaya ke viruddh appellate court ke haisiyat se janch samiti ki nirnaya ko avaidhanik ghoshit karna diwani nyayalaya ke
kshetradhikar ke bahar hai
8. It is note-worty that in a Full Bench case of this Court reported in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd., . vide
para 11 it has been indicated as below:
It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is all-embracing except to the extent it is excluded by an express provision of law or by clear
intendment arising from such law. In Dhulabhai and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, the Supreme Court of India had
occasion to consider in detail as to in which circumstances the suit would be maintainable in the Civil Court and in which not. After examining the
various authorities the following propositions were laid down:
(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the Civil Court''s jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is
adequate remedy to do what the Civil Court would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the
provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of
judicial procedure.
9. In the present case I find that both the courts below have indicated that the decision of the sub-Committee of the University cancelling the
examination of the Plaintiff is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. In such a circumstance the decision of the lower appellate court
holding the Plaintiff''s suit as barred by the provisions of Section 69 of the State Universities Act, 1973 is tainted with illegality and deserves to be
set aside. The lower appellate Court has misunderstood the ruling lelied upon by itself and reported in 1981 UPLBEC 361. The aforesaid ruling
was inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the present case there is a clear finding that the decision of sub-
committee was in violation of the principles of natural justice. When a decision of an authority under a particular Act is excluded from the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court it does not mean that the decision being in violation of the principles of natural justice is also beyond the purview of
the Civil Court. To my mind the Civil Court has ample jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the authority under the particular Act in such a
circumstance.
10. For the foregoing discussions, I think that the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court is wrong and illegal and deserves to be set aside.
The above-noted second appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court is set aside and the case is sent back to the lower
appellate court for decision strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the discussions made above. Parties are directed to bear their own
costs.