ANALYSIS OF HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR FROM

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PERSPECTIVE

SUBMITTED BY SUBMITTED TO
MUKUL VERMA PROF. JEET SINGH MAAN
52BALLB16

National Law University

Delhi (India)

2018
 DECLARATION

I am extremely pleased to present this research paper of Administrative Law. The pursuit of this
research has been a very profitable experience for me in terms of experience and knowledge.
However, the completion of this project would have been highly improbable without the constant
support of my teachers, parents and friends and for that I am very thankful to them. I am also
very grateful to my teacher and guide Prof. Jeet Singh Maan, who gave me this opportunity to
take up this project. It was due to his help and guidance throughout this research that led to the
successful completion of this project. I have known about all sources where the ideas were taken.

Mukul Verma (52BALLB16)

National Law University, Delhi

2
 Case List

A K Kraipak v Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150..........................................................................14

Abhay v V K Srinivasan AIR 1981 Del. 381.................................................................................15
Alcoholic Beverage v State of Bihar 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 4806................................................10
BALCO Employees v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333.............................................................14
Board of High School v. Ghan Shyam AIR 1962 SC 1110...........................................................14
Canara Bank v V.K Awasthi AIR 2005 6 SCC 321.......................................................................13
Cat Sales co cooperative society v. Andhra Pradesh AIR 1977 SC 2313....................................14
Dwarka Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 224...................................................10
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 554..........................................................10
Harla v. State of Rajasthan,AIR1951 SC 467.................................................................................9
Jawaharlal Nehru v B.S Narwal AIR 1980 SC 1966....................................................................14
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597....................................................................5
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 430....................................................................9
Panama Refining co .v.Ryan (1934) 293 US 388............................................................................9
R. Radhakrishen v Osmaina University AIR 1974 AP 283...........................................................14
Re The Delhi Laws Act v. The Part C States (Laws) Act, 1951 AIR 332......................................10
Ridge v. Baldwin, (1964) AC 40......................................................................................................5
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 818.........................................................13
Union of India v. T R Verma AIR 1957 SC 882............................................................................13
Vasantlal v State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 4...............................................................................10
Vibhu Kapur v. Council of ISC examination AIR 1985 Del 142...................................................14

3
 Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 – SYNOPSIS....................................................................................................................6

OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................6

LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................................7

HYPOTHESIS.................................................................................................................................7

RESEARCH QUESTION...................................................................................................................8

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE..................................................................................................................8

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................8

TENTATIVE CHAPTERISATION......................................................................................................8

CHAPTER 2- NON RECOGNITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PRINCIPLE........................................10

DELEGATED LEGISLATION.........................................................................................................10

EXCESSIVE DELEGATION............................................................................................................11

OBSERVATION............................................................................................................................13

NON COMPLIANCE OF PARENT ACT...........................................................................................14

CHAPTER 3 – RECOGNITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW................................................................15

PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE...............................................................................................15

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM (TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE).................................................................15

OBSERVATION............................................................................................................................17

CHAPTER 4 – CONCLUSION............................................................................................................18

RECOMMENDATION....................................................................................................................18

ANNEXURE 1..................................................................................................................................19

ANNEXURE 2..................................................................................................................................20

ANNEXURE 3..................................................................................................................................21

ANNEXURE 4..................................................................................................................................22

4
ANNEXURE 5..................................................................................................................................23

ANNEXURE 6..................................................................................................................................24

ANNEXURE 7..................................................................................................................................25

ANNEXURE 8..................................................................................................................................26

ANNEXURE 9..................................................................................................................................27

ANNEXURE 10................................................................................................................................28

ANNEXURE 11................................................................................................................................29

ANNEXURE 12.................................................................................................................................30

ANNEXURE 13.................................................................................................................................33

5
 CHAPTER 1 – SYNOPSIS

OVERVIEW
HNLU was established in 2003 under the Act No. 10 of 2003 of Hidayatullah National
University of Law, Chhattisgarh Act. It is recognized under section 2(f) of the University Grant
Commission Act, 1956 and under section 12(B) of UGC Act, 1956 can take central assistance to
make rules. This university is recognized under section 7 of Bar Council of India. Under section
15 of the HNLU act has power to make regulations as other body according to the necessary but
these regulation and amendments should not affect the statute of constitution. There are many
regulation framed by executive council regarding appointment of teachers but it should not
violate the parent statute.

INTRODUCTION
Administrative law is a different branch from legal discipline; it was a “amazing legal
development in the 20th century”1 Administrative law regulate the relation between individual-
public power and executive - administrative authority. 2 It maintains the growth and stability of
the society or the welfare and social order by reconciling the power and liberty 3 Administrative
law is a body of affirmative action and reasonable limitations which are evolved by the courts
and legislature to maintain the Rule of Law in the society. Administrative law is not only deals
with executive and legislative rules but also the exercise of discretion forms for future action.
The main aim is that the persons who hold the public power are able to justify their action legally
that the action is valid just, fair and reasonable. So we can say administrative law is a branch of
public law which basically deals with the quasi administrative and administrative agencies and
direct rules and principles by which a official action is reviewed in the relation to individual
freedom and liberty.

In this project researcher wants to analyze the statute of Hidayatullah National Law University
which was established under the Act of university (Act No. 10 of 2003) and also looking into the
rules and regulation which is framed by the university under the parent legislation? There are

1
BernardSchwartz, French Administration Law and the Common Law World,(1954).
2
J.A.G. Griffith and H. Street, Principles of Administrative Law, 5th ed., 1973.
3
I.P. Massey, Administrative Law, (7th edition pg no. 1 2008).

6
many rules made by the authority under the parent legislation for the internal governance of the
university. There are many laws which are violating the fundamental of administrative law. if
any delegated legislation is violating the parent and constitutionality of the act then delegate
legislation is invalid. To make rules an authority should follow the procedure which is not
against the fundamental of administrative law and parent statue. In HNLU there are many issues
in which they are violating the parent act and some places following the administrative law
facets. So I will look the recognition and non- recognition of administrative law.

LITERATURE REVIEW
To understand the principle of Administrative Law the researches went through the principle of
administrative law sixth edition written by M P Jain and S N Jain in which he gets the idea about
the Principle of Natural Justice how is it evolved specially in India. In Ridge v. Baldwin4 case it
was held that it is difficult to give perfect definition of principle of natural justice but a fair
procedure should be followed at the time of judgment. This principle evolved in England but
later it spreads to India. In India, in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India5 case court held that a law
made by the parliament should be made according to the Due Process it means it should be fair,
just and reasonable if a law is not just, fair and reasonable then it is invalid.

The researcher will go through the all rules and regulation of the HNLU. There is a lot of
information which is not provided on the site so researcher has filed a RTI to get information
about the transparency in their system.

In Administrative law seventh edition of IP Massey and C K Takwani the researcher gets the
knowledge about the delegated legislation and principle of natural justice. The researcher used
articles and other various commentaries to know the information about administrative law.

HYPOTHESIS
The main objective of the research is to look the Parent act, rules and regulation of Hidayatullah
National Law University, Raipur whether these are followed or not according to the principles of
administrative law. So there are many rules and regulation which are not followed properly
according to the fundamental principle of administrative law. To analyze the excessive
delegation of power.

4
Ridge v. Baldwin, (1964) AC 40.
5
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

7
RESEARCH QUESTION
1. Whether there is non – compliance of parent statute by the executive, academic and
finance council.
2. Whether there is delegation of power to the vice chancellor is excessive by the HNLU
Act.
3. Whether the Principles of Natural justice have been duly recognized in the Bye – Laws
and student led committees.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
 To understand the HNLU, Raipur act is following the fundamentals of administrative law
or not
 To get the information about the transparency in funds is followed or not in HNLU.
 To see that the principle of natural justice is followed if any action is taken against the
student.
 To understand the delegated legislation and concentration of power in the vice chancellor
hand.
 To look that parent act is followed by academic council, executive council and finance
council.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher is using doctrinal method of research to complete the project. The researcher is
using the parent act of Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur and using UCC and BCI
guidelines. He recognizes the issues which are recognition and non recognition of administrative
law. This research will be rely on RTI which is filed by the researcher in HNLU, books,
commentaries, case laws, articles and statue which relates to administrative law which help to
make strong argument for suggestion to complete the project. The researcher talked with few
students of HNLU regarding the internal issues which are not provided on the website.

TENTATIVE CHAPTERISATION
Chapter1. Introduction

Chapter2. Non Recognition of Administrative Law principle

8
Chapter3. Recognition of Administrative Law principle

Capter4. Suggestion and Conclusion

9
 CHAPTER 2- NON RECOGNITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PRINCIPLE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
The definition of delegated legislation was firstly given by Salmond. His definition stated that
“any authority other than the sovereign and deriving its power from superior authority and it is
dependent on the upon supreme or superior authority is called delegated legislation.” 6 Article
13(3) of Constitution of India also emphasizes on the delegated legislation that law has included
within regulation, order, rule, ordinances or by laws and notification having the force of law. 7 In
simpler terms when the legislation delegated the function to the organs by the legislature itself
then the organ made legislation is called delegated legislation. According to Jain and Jain 8
delegated legislation can be used in two ways: (i) when the legislative power delegated to the
subordinate agency by the legislature itself ii) Or the ancillary rule of the delegated authority and
jurisdiction derived from the legislature. Example – According to section 8 of the Export and
Import act the government at the center has delegated power to frame rules to meet the necessity
of the purpose of the act. The committee constituted on Minister’s power or Donoughmore
committee has laid down solid reasons for the evolution of delegated legislation. Firstly-
Pressure upon parliament- the expanding horizons of the welfare and state activities has laid
down a lot of pressure on the parliament. Dealing with matters in detail is a tedious task. Second-
technicality of subject matter – the common man character of the legislature has gone on to
prove that they are not aware of the technical aspects of the all subject matter so the power is
delegated by them to the ones expert in those subjects. Third- Experiment- There is rigidity in
the Supreme Legislation and is not accustomed to getting amended so easily but there is
flexibility in the delegated legislation. Fourth- When there is Emergency applied, legislature
cannot have a meeting at short notice therefore the situation can be dealt with if the, legislature
give larger ambit of powers to executive to deal in such situation.

As laid down in Re Delhi Laws Act9 case was the primary case regarding delegated legislation
after the post independence era, which was adjudicated upon by Supreme Court. The court in this

6
Salmond on Jurisprudence (12th edition) 116; Craies on Statute Law (7th edition)
7
Article 13(3) of Indian Constitution, 1950.
8
Principle of Administrative Law, Vol. 1 (2007) 52.
9
In Re The Delhi Laws Act v. The Part C States (Laws) Act, 1951 AIR 332

10
case opined that parliament can delegate ancillary power but not essential legislative power is
allowed. Factors given by the committee to growth of delegated legislation is also discussed in
Re Delhi Laws case.

There is no specific legal provision in India for the delegation of power consultation.
Consultation is only needed when there is a need for consultation with enabling or parent act.
The enabling act sometimes called a directory for consultation or sometimes necessary. Prior
consultation is mandatory in environmental matters. Consultation of the project in Tehri Dam,
for example, was mandatory or consultation of procedural criteria in areas such as motor vehicles
is not compulsory but of directory type.

In Harla v. State of Rajasthan10 Through resolution, the Jaipur Opium Act was passed by the
Council. According to this act, a person cannot carry opium beyond the limit laid down in the act
or if a person carries a penalty levied on the accused but this act has never been released in print.
Under this act, Harla was punished for possessing opium in more amounts than allowed by the
act. He argued that this case was ultra-virus procedural. His sentence was set aside by the
Supreme Court and the law declared invalid. The court held that the legislation should be made
public in keeping with the rule of natural justice. Accessibility and marketing are part of the
natural justice concept. To provide legal adequacy any order, rules and regulation, it should be
published and made before public.

Often non-compliance with subordinate legislation is punishable even if no report has been
written, so this is a major lacuna in the sub delegation. The Indian Committee recommended that
the individuals associated with the sub delegation be informed.11

In Narendra Kumar v. Union of India 12 section 3 of essential commodity Act, 1955 Required to
publish in the official gazette all the rules. There was therefore no warning for non-ferrous
metals. The Supreme Court held that this principle does not apply because it is mandatory to
pubicate in the official gazette.

10
Harla v. State of Rajasthan,AIR1951 SC 467.
11
6 Rep (II LS), p.2.
12
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 430.

11
EXCESSIVE DELEGATION

In panama Refining co .v.Ryan13The principle of excessive delegation has been developed, and
India has also adopted this theory. Sometimes known as the case of Hot Coal. In this situation,
under section 9(c) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, the president has the power to ban oil
transportation in inter-state trade. This was questioned and the majority of judges found that the
delegation was unconstitutional because it provided unlimited power over prohibition as it
deemed necessary.

In Dwarka Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh14 case the exemption clause of Essential Supplies
Act gave unrestricted power to the comptroller to apply restrictive clause on particular case or
not.

15
In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India Parliament passed the Drug and Magic Remedies
Act of 1954. The act was brought to prevent the person suffering from incurable disease from
being mischievous. Section 3 of this act specifies the diseases that were barred from advertising
and allows the central government to add other diseases to the list. This case was the first in
which, on the grounds of excessive delegation, the Supreme Court struck down the law. The
court held that Parliament did not provide instructions on which disease could be included in the
list.

In Alcoholic Beverage v State of Bihar16 The case was resolved in 2016. The court rejected the
notice from the Bihar government regarding the implementation of a total ban. Justice Nanavati
depended on the case of Hamdara Dawa Khana and held that there was no clause in the act that
gives the government power to enforce a total ban. Understanding the excessive delegation court
refers to checking I whether it transfers important legislative work (ii) whether the executive is
directed by any rules or policies made by the legislature.17

If delegation is unreasonable then independence is abandoned. The power given to delegated law
is no more than the monarch, and the power of the legislature is not abdicated. In Re Delhi Laws

13
Panama Refining co .v.Ryan (1934) 293 US 388.
14
Dwarka Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 224.
15
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 554.
16
Alcoholic Beverage v State of Bihar 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 4806.
17
Vasantlal v State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 4.

12
case court held that court has power to intervene with power delegation is indefinite, and
abdication of character numbers.

13
OBSERVATION
According to Section 5(xli)18 of HNLU Act, University may delegate to the Vice Chancellor all
its power. As we saw in the case of Hamdard Dawa Khana and Alcohal Beverage, there must be
proper guidelines provided by the parent statue or parliament for excessive delegation of
authority. Within section 5(xli) there is undue delegation of authority to the Vice Chancellor, but
there is no legal guidance. The powers are not clear and ambiguous.

Section 919 of the HNLU Act lays down the power and function of the executive council. The
Executive Council is empowered to establish roles in teaching, science, administration, and
subordinate management staff, and to provide conditions as governed and appointed to such
positions in compliance with the regulations. As given in regulations, the Executive Council can
delegate these powers to the Vice Chancellor. The executive council therefore has the power to
create administrative office, it is necessary and intrinsic power of the executive council delegated
to the vice chancellor. So vice chancellor has a lot of power to take decision regarding the
administration and this council abdicated the power to the vice chancellor.

According to section 19(6)20 of the HNLU Act The Vice Chancellor shall be the Educational and
Chief Executive Officer and shall be able to provide general and specific guidance in matters
relating to the Executive Council. He shall exercise all the powers of the university's
management and administration board.

Section 521of the HNLU Statute authorizes the General Council to examine the matter taken up
by the authorities. It also provides that the chair of meetings will be the vice chancellor. If any
authority uses excessive power delegation, the General Council can review the action taken by
the authority. This is a breach of law against discrimination since in his own affair no one can be
a judge. The vice chancellor is a member of the general council and his opinion in spite of the
actions he took. It is therefore a denial of the rule of natural justice.

NON COMPLIANCE OF PARENT ACT

18
Annexure 1.
19
Annexure 2.
20
Annexure 3.
21
Annexure 4.

14
According to Section 1022 of the HNLU Act the executive council shall meet at least one time in
the six month but according to the meetings provided on the website of HNLU the meetings were
not held according to the parent act and it is violation of parent act. There were no regular
meeting in six month as given in parent statute.

According to Section 1623 of HNLU Act the Academic Council shall meet two times in academic
year but the academic council did not meet according to the parent statue so it is violation of
enabling act. There was no meeting happened between 2009 to 2014. This is the violation of
enabling act of HNLU.

According to section 17(4)24 of the parent statute the finance council shall meet two times in year
but according to minutes provided on the website the finance council did not meet according to
the parent statute and it is violation of enabling statue. There were no meetings in 2010 and
between 16.12.2015 to 21.12.2017 only once the council meets for meeting.

I have provided all council meetings minutes which is showing that councils did not follow the
procedure given in enabling and violation of parent statute.25

I have talked with my friend regarding the mess contractor. According to the rules of the mess
contract the term for contract is one year. It can be extended for 2 year if it is satisfactory.
Maximum extension can be done for three year. But in HNLU the mess contractor is same from
2012. So it is violation of rules given in mess contract.26

One application was undersigned by 51 students of the HNLU it was regarding the sexual
harassment by a teacher and it was given to the vice chancellor.

22
Annexure 5.
23
Annexure 6.
24
Annexure 7.
25
Annexure 8.
26
Annexure 9.

15
 CHAPTER 3 – RECOGNITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Natural justice includes equality in procedural terms. In administrative law, this is an important
concept. Natural justice theory is a branch of public law and a tool for ensuring justice for
people.27 In Canara Bank v V.K Awasthi28 The Supreme Court observed that the rules laid down
by the courts for the minimum security of individual rights against unfair and arbitrary actions
which may be followed by administrative, judicial and quasi-judicial authorities in the course of
their decision. The guidelines for the basic protection of rights laid down by the court are
therefore the concept of natural justice.

There are two traditional practice to recognize the principle of natural jusice.

(i) Nemo judex in causa sua

(ii) Audi alteram partem

So the researcher is discussing the audi alteram partem in detail with relevant case laws.

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM (TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE)

This is the important concept of the natural justice principle. The meaning of the audi alteram
partem means that before passing an order both parties must hear, no man should be condemned
unheard of. In every civilized society, this is ‘Sine quo none.' The other party should give an
opportunity to put its side before passing any order against the party. In Union of India v. T R
Verma29justice Aiyar observed that “according to the principle of natural justice parties should
give opportunity to produce evidence in his favor. When a party submits its evidence, the party
in opposition must give the opportunity to cross-examine the witness or time to produce in his
favor.

There are three important aspect of audi alteram partem are-

(i) Notice must be given to the party whom action is proposed

27
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 818.
28
Canara Bank v V.K Awasthi AIR 2005 6 SCC 321.
29
Union of India v. T R Verma AIR 1957 SC 882.

16
(ii) Adequate opportunity given to the party whom action is proposed and give opportunity to say
why action should not be taken up

(iii) Authority must give reason for the action after representation of the party likely to be
affected.

In A K Kraipak30 case Court differentiated between pure and quasi-judicial administrative action.
Simple administration activity entails civil penalties, so it is necessary to follow the rule of
natural justice. In Balco Employee case court held that any wrong decision had a negative impact
on the party before any administrative order was issued, a fair opportunity had to be given to the
party affected by the order.31 In Cat Sales co cooperative society v. Andhra Pradesh 32, It is
specifically stated in the staute of the society that notice must be given to the party before any
action is taken. Therefore, the warning was not given as a breach of the rule of natural justice. In
Board of High School v. Ghan Shyam33 The student's outcome was revoked and barred from
competing in the next test on the grounds that it was found to be unjust. This student was given
no opportunity to counter the claims. The Supreme Court held that the quasi-judicial nature of
the action taken by the department of investigation. Authority action has impacted the party's
privileges and rights. The court therefore held that the Committee of Review should obey the
rule of natural justice.

In R. Radhakrishen v Osmaina University34case MBA exam was cancelled by the university on

the ground of mass copying. There was no chance given to the students to hear. The A P High
court held that to give chance to individual is impracticable so the cancellation of exam was
valid. Cancellation of examination result without inquiry on the mere suspension that the conduct
was illegal. The petitioner gave exam and answered all question but result was not given because
of shortage of attendance. The petitioner was not given fair chance of hearing.35 In the book of
M. P Jain and S N Jain draw a distinction between removal of student on ground of indiscipline
and on the academic ground. In the first one principle of natural justice is required. 36 In

30
A K Kraipak v Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150.
31
BALCO Employees v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333.
32
Cat Sales co cooperative society v. Andhra Pradesh AIR 1977 SC 2313.
33
Board of High School v. Ghan Shyam AIR 1962 SC 1110.
34
R. Radhakrishen v Osmaina University AIR 1974 AP 283.
35
Vibhu Kapur v. Council of ISC examination AIR 1985 Del 142.
36
M.P JAIN & S.N JAINPRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 333 (6th ed.2007) Lexis Nexis Wadhwa.

17
Jawaharlal Nehru v. B S Narwal37 case court held that if a person is removed from the university
on the ground of poor academic performance then he cannot claim for principle of natural
justice. In Abhay v V K Srinivasan38 the petitioner was barred from attending the classes or in
institution till the criminal case pending against him. The petitioner claimed for principle of
natural justice was rejected on the ground that it is action taken by university is valid for the
larger public interest.

OBSERVATION
Section 3139 of the HNLU Act deals with the disciplines. The section gives vice-chancellor
control and is ultimate authority. Sub section (1) of this act specifies that the University's Vice
Chancellor is the head of departments and hostel. Under sub-section (2) if a person is rusticated
from the hostel and debarred from review, the vice-chancellor shall give him a fair opportunity to
put his side. So we can see that the concept of natural justice is being implemented. Without audi
alteram partem, the individual cannot limit what is important to the rule of natural justice. The
executive council's intervention affects party constitutional rights and privileges. So section 30 is
quasi judicial in nature. So principle of natural of natural justice is following in the section 30 of
the HNLU Act.

Section 840 of the examination rule act discusses the unfair means. That clause describes the
unequal means, but rule 8.4 allows a student to give the opportunity to present their case in
writing or oral. So we can see that there is a principle of justice in existence and that the guilty
party is entitled to audi alteram partem. University, therefore, acknowledges the concept of
natural justice in this paragraph.

37
Jawaharlal Nehru v B.S Narwal AIR 1980 SC 1966.
38
Abhay v V K Srinivasan AIR 1981 Del. 381.
39
Annexure 10.
40
Annexure 11.

18
 CHAPTER 4 – CONCLUSION
Delegated legislation plays a very important role to work smoothly. Parliament cannot work in
all fields therefore they delegated their power to subordinate authority. By the excessive
delegation power conferred in one individual and it create arbitrariness and unreasonableness. To
avoid the excessive delegation essential legislative power should not be grant and if grant then
proper and specific guideline and policy should be provide. All council of the university must be
meet according to the parent and enabling act. The principle of natural justice must be followed
when any disciplinary action taken against a student. He has to give reasonable opportunity to
put his side. The audi alteram partem must be followed. No person shall be the member if matter
is related to him because it causes biasness.

RECOMMENDATION
According to HNLU Act and Staff and regulation act vice chancellor has been excessive
delegated power under section 5(xli), 9 and 19(vi). So these sections should be amended
according to due process. so excessive delegation power taken away from the vice chancellor. If
a teaching and non teaching staff member is appointed by the vice chancellor. In the selection
committee of the vice chancellor is chairman and all three members are nominated by the vice
chancellor. So there may be chance of biasness. So nominated member should not be selected by
the vice chancellor there should be other mechanism to nominate the member.

Section 19(vi) and 5(xli) of the statute should be amended because these sections provide power
to vice chancellor in generality. When there is delegation of power then proper policy and
guideline provided so it does not become arbitrary or unreasonable. To provide guideline help to
achieve the goal of delegated legislation.

Section 5 of the HNLU Act gives power to the general council to review the action of authorities
and this committee is chaired by vice chancellor also. So there is principle of natural justice that
no one can be judge in own case otherwise rule against biasness would be violate. So there
should be spate committee to review the decision of general committee.

According to parent act all there committee (FC, EC, AC) must be meet according to the parent
or enabling act.

19
20
ANNEXURE 1

21
ANNEXURE 2

22
ANNEXURE 3

23
ANNEXURE 4

24
ANNEXURE 5

25
ANNEXURE 6

26
ANNEXURE 7

27
ANNEXURE 8

28
29
ANNEXURE 9

30
ANNEXURE 10

31
ANNEXURE 11

32
 ANNEXURE 12
APPLICATION U/S 6(1) OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION

To

The Public Information Officer

Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

492002

Date: 22 September 2018

Subject: Request for information relating to university administration.

1. Name of the Applicant: Mukul Verma

2. Present Address: Room No. 312 Prof Ghanshyam Singh Boys Hostel, National Law
University, New Delhi-110078

3. Telephone No.: +91 8290614943, 8587065088

4. Email: mukul.verma16@nludelhi.ac.in, vermamukul566@gmail.com

5. Particulars of information requested:

1. Is there any student representation to Academic Council, Executive Council or Finance

Committee?

1.1 If so how are these students selected? Who are the current student representatives to the
above mentioned respective bodies?

2. Is there any constitution of Student Bar Council or Student Body and if so is it ratified?

2.1 If yes, kindly provide copy of the Constitution either attached with the reply or an
online copy on the mail id – mukul.verma@nludelhi.ac.in

33
 2.2 Who authorised it?

2.3 Whether elections have been held for the Student Body?

3. Whether there has been any change in the past 10 years in the contractor or any other legal
person running the mess and Cafetaria?

3.1 Please provide the names and address of all such persons for last 10 years.

3.2 Kindly provide the process of notifying such tenders, if any.

4. Is there any committee which deals with the hostel rules violation?

4.1 Who are the members of such committee? What is the procedure to be taken by such
committee if it receives any complaint?

4.2 Is there any appellate authority against the decision of such committee? Who has the
authority to expel the student temporarily or permanently?

5. Whether there is any feedback mechanism on the quality of teaching available in the college?

5.1 If so what is the procedure of that mechanism?

5.2 Whether in the past 2 years there has been any such implementation of any feedback
mechanism?

5.3 Please provide the report.

6. Whether any modification of the academic or exam regulations has been authorised by the
Vice Chancellor or Registrar or any other authority?

6.1 If so please provide the notice of the copies communicating such changes?

6.2 Please provide the source of power for authorisation for such changes?

7. What happens in a situation where dispute (regarding payment or promotion) arises between
the VC or Registrar and faculty of the institution?

7.1 Is there any committee for such dispute?

7.2 Who is the head of such committee?

34
6. Whether the information is required by post or in person: By Post: Speed Post

7. Does the applicant agree to pay the required fee: Yes

8. Whether the applicant is below poverty line: No

9. The applicant states that nearly all of the information sought must be disclosed Under Section
4 (1) (a) RTI Act within 120 days of the Act. The RTI Act predated the HNLU Act.

10. I, the applicant, hereby, state that the information sought is not covered under the Categories
which are exempted from disclosure of information under section 8 or under Section 9 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 and it pertains to your Department/office.

 I, the applicant, hereby agree to pay any additional fee (according to the standard fees
Under the Right to Information Act prevailing in the Raipur) that would be required of
me in order to furnish the requested information.
 I am attaching a postal order of Rs 10 as fees.

13. You are requested to provide the above information as soon as possible, and at maximum
within 30 days as prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act.

DECLARATION OF THE APPLICANT

I am a citizen of India and the information given by me in this form is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.

Place: New Delhi

Signature

Date: 22 September 2018

35
36
 ANNEXURE 13
APPLICATION U/S 6(1) OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION

To

The Public Information Officer

Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

492002

Date: 22 September 2018

Subject: Request for information relating to university administration.

1. Name of the Applicant: Mukul Verma

2. Present Address: Room No. 312 Prof Ghanshyam Singh Boys Hostel, National Law
University, New Delhi-110078

3. Telephone No.: +91 8290614943, 8587065088

4. Email: mukul.verma16@nludelhi.ac.in, vermamukul566@gmail.com

5. Particulars of information requested:

1. Whether there is any internal quality assurance system (as per the UGC Quality Mandate) to
build and ensure quality culture at the institution?

1.1 If so, who is the principal of the Cell and who are the members?

1.2 Is there any student representation?

1.3 For how many times in the past two years the Cell has met?

1.4 Please provide the minutes of meeting.

37
2. Whether there has been any price hike in the fees of the college in the past 5 years?
2.1 If so, please provide the notice of such changes?
2.2 Whether the students were consulted before price hike?
3. Whether there is any feedback mechanism on the quality of teaching available in the college?
3.1 If so what is the procedure of that mechanism?
3.2 Whether in the past 2 years there has been any such implementation of any feedback
mechanism?
3.3 Please provide the report.
4. What is the composition of the selection committee for the selection and removal of
teachers?
4.1 How are the members of selection committee appointed? What is the procedure adopted
to select the candidates?

5. Please specify the full names, designations and remuneration paid of legal officers,
consultants etc hired by the University for availing legal advice concerning University
Affairs (not merely restricted to Accounts) for the period 2013 – 2018. Kindly include the
names of the establishment they belong to.
6. Till the present date, how many times a review commission has met (as given in HNLU Act
2003) and if it has not been formed then what are the reasons for the same?
6.1 Also if formed, please provide the details regarding minutes of the meeting of the
commission.

6. Whether the information is required by post or in person: By Post: Speed Post

7. Does the applicant agree to pay the required fee: Yes

8. Whether the applicant is below poverty line: No

9. The applicant states that nearly all of the information sought must be disclosed Under Section
4 (1) (a) RTI Act within 120 days of the Act. The RTI Act predated the HNLU Act.

10. I, the applicant, hereby, state that the information sought is not covered under the Categories
which are exempted from disclosure of information under section 8 or under Section 9 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 and it pertains to your Department/office.

38
  I, the applicant, hereby agree to pay any additional fee (according to the standard fees
Under the Right to Information Act prevailing in the Raipur) that would be required of
me in order to furnish the requested information.
 I am attaching a postal order of Rs 10 as fees.

13. You are requested to provide the above information as soon as possible, and at maximum
within 30 days as prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act.

DECLARATION OF THE APPLICANT

I am a citizen of India and the information given by me in this form is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.

Place: New Delhi

Signature

Date: 22 September 2018

39
BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACTS AND LEGISLATIONS

 CHATTISGARHADHINIYAM (NO. 10 OF 2003) ACT

 AMENDMENTS TO HNLU ACT AND STATUTES FROM 2007 TO 2014

BOOKS
 SALMOND, J. AND FITZGERALD, P. (1966). SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE. 1ST ED.

LONDON: SWEET & MAXWELL

 SATHE, S. (2016). ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. 7TH ED. LEXISNEXIS
 JAIN, M. (2010). PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. 6TH ED. LEXISNEXIS.

 C.K Takwani,Lectures on Administrative Law, 5th ed., Eastern Book Co.

 I.P Massey, Administrative Law, 7th ed. (2008), Eastern Book Co.
 M.P JAIN & S.N Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, 6th ed.(2010), Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa pub.

Case Laws

40