Issue of temporary VC appointments: Kerala high court extends status quo
Kochi: HC has extended its previous order directing status quo with respect to the temporary vice-chancellors (VCs) of the Digital University and APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University until June 6.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and P V Balakrishnan issued the interim order on the appeals filed by the chancellor and the temporary VCs, challenging the single bench judgment, which held that their appointments were legally unsustainable as they were made without the recommendation of the state govt. The court adjourned the appeals to June 2.
The single bench had earlier held that the appointments of Ciza Thomas (Digital University) and K Sivaprasad (Technological University) were not in accordance with law, owing to the absence of a recommendation from the state.
However, it declined to interfere with the appointments, noting that the statutory six-month tenure of temporary VCs was set to expire on May 27.
Chancellor filed appeals contending that the Supreme Court has recognised the chancellor's independent authority in appointing VCs and that the requirement of state govt recommendation under the University Acts is inconsistent with the UGC Regulations, 2018. It was also argued that the six-month tenure limit applies only under the University Acts, and that the incumbents could continue until regular appointments are made.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Chellanam coastal erosion: Kerala HC seeks report on temporary measures taken
Kochi: High court has sought instructions from the state govt and Chellanam panchayat regarding temporary measures to protect residents of the Chellanam coastal area from sea erosion during this monsoon. The bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji also directed the authorities to report on the feasibility of placing Geo bags/tubes to prevent sea inundation. The court then adjourned the PIL filed by T A Dalfine and two other local residents to Tuesday. In compliance with an earlier HC directive, officials from the district administration and the irrigation department appeared in court, and the deputy collector's report was produced. After reviewing the report, the bench remarked that emergency shelters are not a lasting solution. When HC asked about installing Geo bags/tubes, the state submitted that completion would take two months, to which the court responded that the monsoon would be over by then. The petitioners added that although installation of Geo tubes had begun after local protests, the work was later abandoned; so far, Geo bags have been laid along 7.35km of shoreline. The court adjourned the matter to Tuesday, directing all stakeholders, including the state, to propose short-term measures to curb sea erosion at Chellanam.
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Time of India
Special court closes Powai land case against Niranjan Hiranandani, others
MUMBAI : A special court Monday closed criminal proceedings against developer Niranjan Hiranandani and others in the alleged Rs 30,000 crore Powai Area Development Scheme (PADS) land scam case. The judge observed that prosecuting the accused would not be in keeping with justice and that there was no prima facie case after the state Anti-Corruption Bureau submitted a closure report saying there was no evidence of corruption, monetary gratification, dishonest intention, or criminal conspiracy. The case relates to allegations that prime public land leased at concessional rates for affordable housing was diverted to construct luxury real estate and commercial premises by private developers, notably Niranjan Hiranandani, managing director of the Hiranandani group . "Having perused the closure report, I find that no material or anything incriminating, which could connect the accused…with the alleged crime has been found…in my opinion it would thus, be futile to unnecessarily prosecute the accused.., sans any material against them," special judge Shashikant Eknathrao Bangar said in a 119-page order made available on Tuesday. The judge said the closure reports are based on cogent investigation, verified compliance, and supported by judicial orders of the Bombay high court. Pointing to the HC's orders in three related PILs alleging breach of agreement with govt and misuse of FSI and development rights, the judge said allegations concerning breach of affordable housing obligations, amalgamation of flats, and sale of flats were conclusively examined and remedied. The judge noted that the high court had constituted a three-member joint committee to verify compliance and accepted reports in 2016 and 2017, which confirmed that out of 2,200 flats of 80 sqm, 1,337 were constructed, 12 locked, and 887 remained to be completed as per the plan and timeline. "The directions for completion of the remaining flats were passed with monitoring provisions. Any further breach or non-compliance was made subject to the court's ongoing supervision, obviating the need for separate criminal proceedings…the ACB rightly concluded that no prosecutable offence remained. There was no material to show abuse of public office or conspiracy," the judge said, adding that the probe was a 'fair' one. The ACB, through public prosecutor Ramesh Siroya, submitted before the court that sale of larger flats and amalgamation, though deviating from the spirit of the Agreement, was retrospectively regularised through the high court hearing the PILs. The agreement dated 19 Nov 1986, was executed between the state, MMRDA, and the developer for an area of 232 acres. Based on activist Santosh Daundkar's plea alleging that Hiranandani and others were involved in irregularities in the housing project, a court in 2012 ordered a probe. The ACB filed an FIR against Hiranandani and senior urban development department officer Thomas Benjamin and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC. In 2013, the ACB sought to close the case on the grounds that there wasn't sufficient evidence. Daundkar opposed the move. The ACB's closure report, which was rejected by the court on Jan 4 2018, led to a directive for further investigations. Following this, a second closure report was submitted on Aug 30, 2019. Daundkar challenged this report too and sought a reinvestigation. He alleged malafide transfer of the investigating officer, who was purportedly preparing to file a chargesheet against top officials and the builder. Daundkar argued that the final report was a result of administrative interference and suppression of crucial material. He contended that the final report is based heavily on the HC's civil PIL orders and ignores criminal aspects. He sought a fresh probe by an independent agency. The ACB said the allegations were not supported by documentary evidence or witness statements. "There are around 8,000 residents (approx) residing in PADS. None of the residents have filed any criminal complaints over the years pertaining to the development carried out in PADS," it submitted. It also pointed out that Daundkar had neither purchased any commercial premises nor was a resident or investor in the development. The judge rejected Daundkar's plea against the closure report, saying it reiterated allegations already considered in PILs and brought no new substantive material.
Indian Express
16 hours ago
- Indian Express
SC rejects Delhi Waqf Board's claim over gurdwara: ‘Religious structure already functioning there… should relinquish claim'
The Supreme Court Wednesday rejected the Delhi Waqf Board's claim over a gurdwara in the Capital while observing that the Board should have relinquished its claim once it was clear that the Sikh religious shrine existed there since independence. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and S C Sharma was hearing a 2012 appeal by the Board challenging a September 24, 2010, order of the Delhi High Court dismissing its claim. The counsel appearing for the Waqf Board said it had filed a suit for possession against the defendant Hira Singh. The plea claimed that the property in dispute, i.e., a mosque at Oldenpur Village, Shahadra, is waqf property and has been used as a waqf since time immemorial. The counsel pointed out that the trial court decided in its favour, and this was confirmed by the appellate court in 1989. However, on second appeal, a single judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the suit. He submitted that the lower courts had ruled there was a mosque at the site, but now 'some kind of gurdwara is there.' Justice Sharma said, 'not some kind of, (but) a proper functioning gurdwara. Once there is a gurdwara, let it be. A religious structure is already functioning there. You should yourself relinquish that claim, you see.' Opposing the Board's claim over the property, defendant Hira Singh had contended that it is not a waqf property and that the owner, Mohd Ahsaan, had sold it to him in 1953. He said the premises in dispute was being used as a gurdwara. Ruling against the Board, the HC single-judge had said, 'Oral and documentary evidence establishes that the suit property was private property. There is no evidence forthcoming to substantiate the submission of the plaintiff that, thereafter, there was a permanent dedication of the suit property by the owner as a waqf property… A mere bald statement in the plaint that this property was being used since time immemorial as a waqf property was not sufficient to establish this plea; this has not been corroborated by any of the witnesses of the plaintiff on oath.' The HC added that the Board's star witness 'has admitted that this gurdwara is functioning in this property since Partition, i.e., since 1947…' The HC had added that the documents 'show that this property was privately owned. There was no intention to create a waqf; the intention and user have to be coupled.' It said defendant Hira Sigh 'was admittedly in occupation of this property since 1947-48. It is also true that the defendant was not able to adduce any document of title to evidence the purchase of this property, yet this does not in any manner benefit the plaintiff, who has to establish his own case and prove it to enable him to obtain a decree of possession.'
