Governor’s order Quashed by Kerala Excessive Court docket

By: Priyanka Agarwal

The Kerala Excessive Court docket on Friday, quashed the order of suspension handed by the Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological College, Arif Mohammad Khan. Through the use of the powers supplied by Part 10(3) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological College Act, 2015 (hereinafter known as ‘the Act’), the Chancellor had suspended the operation of two resolutions handed by the syndicate of the College and the Board of the College. The Chancellor additionally occurs to be the Governor of the State. 

One decision was concerning institution of the ‘Syndicate Standing Committee on College Administrative Affairs’ to present administrative assist to the Vice Chancellor and Registrar and, the opposite decision was regarding decision by the Board of the College, deferring the implementation of sure switch orders of the workers. 

In line with Part 10(3) of ‘the Act’, the Chancellor has the facility to  droop or modify the selections made by the executive authority or such different officers of the College, if within the opinion of the Chancellor they don’t seem to be in conformity with the Ordinance, Statues, Ordinances or Rules or is in opposition to the curiosity of the College. However earlier than passing any such order the Chancellor shall obtain a report in writing by the Vice-Chancellor and in addition grant a possibility to show-cause as to why such a call shouldn’t be amended or suspended. After present trigger is proven it will likely be thought-about by the Chancellor and needed motion shall be taken solely after session with the  Authorities, that call shall be closing.

It was contended by the petitioner, who’s a member of the syndicate of the College, represented by Advocates Lakshmi Ramadas  and others, that whereas passing order of suspension, the Chancellor didn’t grant the chance of show-cause and arbitrarily handed the impugned order. 

Nonetheless, the respondent, represented by Advocate S. Prasanth, contended that resolutions handed by the Board have been grossly unlawful and required quick motion for suspension. It was additionally contended that, although no show-cause alternative was given earlier than passing the orders, Part 10(3) of the Act places no bar to grant the chance to show-cause order after motion of suspension has been taken. 

Justice Satish Ninan, whereas counting on earlier judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court docket, like OPTO Circuit India Ltd. v. Axis Financial institution & Ors. (2021) numerous others, didn’t agree with the rivalry of the respondent that chance to show-cause may be given submit the suspension order. He interpreted Part 10(3) of the Act and said that it clearly stipulates that chance to indicate trigger is to be given ‘earlier than making any such order’. 

He stated that “the place the legislation prescribes a factor to be completed in a selected method and following a selected process, it shall be completed in the identical method following the provisions of legislation, with out deviating from the prescribed process”.

Thus, the order of the Chancellor was quashed as a result of the statutory prescription of grant of alternative of show-cause was not complied with and therefore, the writ petition I.B. Satheesh M.L.A. v. The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological College & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 141 was allowed.