Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.7165 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.9176 OF 2026
IN WP No.7165/2026
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
THE MANAGEMENT OF NURSING AND
ALLIED HEALTH SCIENCE INSTITUTIONS
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT:
NO.7380, DADAPEER LAYOUT,
NH-4, NELAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
DR. S. SHIVAKUMAR.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. T. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
CHAYA S A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
MEDICAL EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES,
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
TH
4 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
3. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
TH
4 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
4. DR. NANDEESH J.,
ST
NO.200, 1 CROSS,
CANARA BANK COLONY,
NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU.
5. DR. VINUTHA RAO
NO.2075, PRESTIGE ROYALE GARDENS
AVALAHALLI,
DODDABALLAPUR ROAD,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU.
6. DR. SANKANGOUDA PATIL
PRINCIPAL,
RAJASHEKARAIAH INSTITUTE OF
AYURVEDA MEDICAL SCIENCES
AND HOSPITAL,
SOLUR,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
7. DR. G. MANJUNATH GOWDA
TH
ΝΟ 91/2, 11 MAIN ROAD,
KAMAKSHIPALYA,
VRUSHABHAVATHINAGAR,
BENGALURU.
8. DR. SRINIVAS L.D.
TH
ΝΟ.2009/163, 17 MAIN,
TH RD
5 CROSS, 3 STAGE,
TARALABALU EXTENSION,
DAVANAGERE.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
DR. ANOOP NAIR
9.
NO.284/31 VAISHNAV NILAYA,
SHIVPURA, BAGLUR CROSS,
YELANANKA,
BENGALURU.
10. DR. SUDHARSHAN
SHREE SRINIVASA SAUBHAGYA SADANA,
TH TH
NO.1768, 8 CROSS, 6 MAIN,
R.P.C. LAYOUT,
ND
VIJAYANAGAR 2 STAGE
BENGALURU.
11. DR. VEERESH KARABASAPPA HANCHINAL
MANDRE LAYOUT,
ABHINAVA NAGAR,
KALASAPUR RING ROAD,
NEAR LIONS SCHOOL GROUND,
GADAG.
12. DR. ARAVIND KATTI
CIB COLONY, PLOT NO.412,
BEHIND CENTRAL BUS STAND,
KALABURGI.
13. SMT. VAISHALI SREEJITH
NO. 3-177/1(1), VAIJNATH KRUPA,
GANDHI NAGAR, KAVOOR,
MANGALURU.
14. SRI. SANTOSH SUBHAS INDI
SUBHAS NILAYA, NO.34,
KALIKA NAGAR, NEAR ASHRAM,
VIJAYAPURA.
15. SRI. MELBIN MICHAEL AEACKAL
NANDANAM HOUSE, S-689,
ND
BEL 2 STAGE, BHARATH NAGAR,
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
DR. NAVEEN S.
16.
TH
NO.12, 11 MAIN ROAD,
RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT,
TH
JAYANAGAR 5 BLOCK,
BENGALURU.
17. DR. MAHENDRA S.
TH
NO.1380/B, 10 MAIN,
TH
8 CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
G.K.V.K. POST, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU.
18. DR. SHASHI KUMAR H.C.
FLAT NO.3022,
SOBHA VALLEY VIEW, V LEGECY ROAD,
HOSAKEREHALLI,
R.R. NAGAR,
BENGALURU.
19. DR. KONARADDI J.B.
ST
NO.106, 1 FLOOR,
RAINBOW WATERFRONT APARTMENT,
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
OPP. UTTARAHALLI LAKE,
BENGALURU.
20. MAHENDRA M.
NO.332, MAHA SARO VARA,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
KALKERE,
BENGALURU.
21. BHARATH ANCHE
NO.934, SRI. VENKATESHWARA NILAYA,
KOTE KADUR,
CHIKKAMAGALURU.
22. DR. UMMED RAM
S/O MOHAN LAL,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
ST
R/AT NO.07, 1 MAIN ROAD,
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
ASHWATH NAGAR,
SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH,
P.O. R.M.V. EXTNESION, II STAGE,
BENGALURU-560094
23. DR. K.C. SHASHIDHARA
C/O MANJULA VASUDEVA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEAR,
ST
R/AT NO.446, 1 CROSS,
TH
6 MAIN, 'G' AND 'H' BLOCK,
RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSORE,
J.T. EXTENSION,
MYSURU - 570 023.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA B., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAJARAM S., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R21;
SRI. NITHIN A.M., ADVOCATE FOR R22 AND R23)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.1-STATE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION, TO
RECOMMEND TO RESPONDENT NO.3-UNIVERSITY IN TERMS OF
PROVISO TO SECTION 45(6) OF THE RAJIV GANDHI
UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES ACT TO GRANT
PERMANENT AFFILIATION TO THE INSTITUTIONS WHICH HAVE
BEEN AFFILIATED CONTINUOUSLY FOR A PERIOD NOT LESS
THAN FIVE YEARS; AND ETC.
IN WP No.9176/2026
BETWEEN:
1.
DR. NANDEESH J.
S/O JAYARAMU K.,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ST
NO.200, 1 CROSS,
CANARA BANK COLONY,
NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
2. DR. SANKANGOUDA PATIL
S/O MAHESHWARAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PRINCIPAL,
RAJASHEKARAIAH INSTITUTE OF AYURVEDA
MEDICAL SCIENCES AND HOSPITAL,
SOLUR,
RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 127.
3. DR. G. MANJUNATH GOWDA
S/O K. GOPALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
TH
NO.91/2, 11 MAIN ROAD,
KAMAKSHIPALYA,
VRUSHABHAVATHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 577 005.
4. DR. SRINIVAS L.D.
S/O SHANTHAMMA T.R.,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
TH TH
NO.2009/163, 17 MAIN, 5 CROSS,
RD
3 STAGE, TARALABALU EXTENSION,
DAVANAGERE - 577 005.
5. DR. ANOOP NAIR
S/O S.K. NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
NO.284/31, VAISHNAV NILAYA,
SHIVAPURA, BAGALUR CROSS,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
6. DR. SUDHARSHAN
S/O HANUMANTH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
SHREE SRINIVASA SAUBHAGYA SADANA,
TH TH
NO.1768, 8 CROSS, 6 MAIN,
ND
R.P.C LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR 2 STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 104.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
7. DR. ARAVIND KATTI
S/O SIDRAM KATTI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
CIB COLONY, PLOT NO.412,
BEHIND CENTRAL BUS STAND,
KALABURGI - 585 103.
8. SRI. SANTHOSH SUBHAS INDI
S/O SUBHAS INDI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SUBHAS NILAYA,
NO.34, KALIKA NAGAR, NEAR ASHRAM,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 103.
9. DR. MAHENDRA S.
S/O M. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
TH TH
NO.1380/B, 10 MAIN, 8 CROSS,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 065.
10. DR. SHASHI KUMAR H.C.
C/O CHANNAVEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
FLAT NO.3022, SOBHA VALLEY VIEW,
V LEGECY ROAD, HOSAKEREHALLI,
R.R. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
11. DR. KONAREDDI J.B.
C/O BHEEMARADDI G. KONARADDI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
ST
NO.106, 1 FLOOR,
RAINBOW WATERFRONT APARTMENT,
UTTARAHALLI MAIN RAOD,
OPP. UTTARAHALLI LAKE,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
12. MAHENDRA M.
S/O MADESH S.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
R/AT NO.332, MAHA SARO VARA,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
KALKERE,
BEGNALURU - 560 016.
13. BHARATH ANCHE T.R.
S/O RAJANNA T.L.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO.934, SRI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA,
KOTE KADUR,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 140.
14. DR. VINUTHA RAO
C/O SUDHIR R. RAO,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
NO.2075, PRESTIGE ROYALE GARDENRS,
AVALAHALLI, DODDABALLAPUR ROAD,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU.
15. SRI. MELBIN MICHAEL AEACKAL
S/O MICHAEL A.F.,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
NANDANAM HOUSE, S-689,
ND
B.E.L. 2 STAGE, BHARATH NAGAR,
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU.
16. DR. NAVEEN S.
S/O S.M. SHIVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
TH
NO.12, 11 MAIN ROAD,
RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT,
TH
JAYANAGAR 5 BLOCK,
BENGALURU.
17. SMT. VAISHALAI SREEJITH
W/O SREEJITH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.3-177/1(1), VAIJANTH KRUPA,
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
GANDHI NAGAR, KAVOOR,
MANGALURU.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
MEDICLE EDUCATION
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES,
TH
4 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
TH
4 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
THE MANAGEMENT OF NURSING AND ALLIED
HEALTH SCIENCE INSTITUTIONS
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT: NO.7380,
DADAPEER LAYOUT, NH-4, NELAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
DR. S. SHIVAKUMAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA B., AGA FOR R1;
SMT. MAMATHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. T. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DECISION/RESOLUTION IN TERMS OF LETTER DATED
TH TH
30 DECEMBER, 2024 OF 194 SYNDICATE (SPECIAL)
TH
SYNDICATE MEETING HELD ON 24 DECEMBER, 2024 PASSED
BY RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
Writ Petition No.7165 of 2026 is filed by the Karnataka
State Association of the Management of Nursing and Allied
Health Science Institutions (for short, hereinafter referred to as
'Petitioner-Association' ) seeking direction to the respondent
No.1-Government to recommend the respondent No.3-
University to grant permanent affiliation to the institutions
which have been affiliated continuously for a period of more
than five years in terms of Proviso to Section 45(6) of the Rajiv
Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'RGUHS Act' ). The petitioner-
Association also sought for direction to the respondent No.1-
th
Government to consider the representation dated 04
December, 2026 (Annexure-E) to amend the provisions of the
RGUHS Act; inter alia sought for a direction to the respondent
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
No.2-University to conduct inspection for continuation of
affiliation for the Academic Year 2026-27 onwards in terms of
th
decision taken in Subject 194/IX(1) of 194 (Special) Syndicate
th th
Meeting held on 24 December, 2024 as per letter dated 30
December, 2024 (Annexure-D).
2. Writ Petition No.9176 of 2026 is filed by the
petitioners claim to be a Members of the Senate of the
respondent No.3-University, challenging the decision taken in
th
respect of Subject 194/IX(1) of 194 (Special) Syndicate
th th
Meeting held on 24 December, 2024 as per letter dated 30
December, 2024 (Annexure-A).
3. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication
of Writ Petition No.7165 of 2026 are as follows:
3.1. The petitioner-Association challenged the action of
the respondent No.3-University in appointing the Senate
Members as the Chairman of the Local Inspection Committee
(LIC) for the purpose of inspection of institutions affiliated to
the respondent No.3-University for grant of continuation of
affiliation for the Academic Year 2026-27 as the same is
contrary to RGUHS Act and the statues framed thereunder as
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
th
well as to the decision arrived at the 194 Syndicate Meeting of
th
the respondent No.3-University held on 24 December, 2024.
3.2. It is further averred in writ petition that, as per
Section 45(6) of the RGUHS Act, provision has been made to
grant permanent affiliation to an institutions which were
affiliated continuously for a period not less than five years by
fulfilling all the conditions of affiliation and have attained the
academic and administrative standards prescribed by the
respondent No.3-University. It is further stated that, Section
47(2) of the RGUHS Act authorises the Syndicate to inspect
every such colleges from time to time, however, it does not
specify for every year, to conduct the inspection for the
purpose of continuation of affiliation. Therefore, it is the
contention of the petitioner-Association that, the respondent
No.3-University having been inspecting each of the institutions,
though it is not provided in the RGUHS Act, to carryout such
inspection every year and that apart, the statute cannot
override the law and as such, the statute was silent as to who
should be the competent person under Section 47 of the
RGUHS Act for the purpose of inspection of the grant of fresh
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
affiliation and continuation of affiliation. Therefore, it is
contended by the petitioner-Association that the respondent
No.3-University shall conduct inspection for continuation of
affiliation for the Academic year 2026-27 as per the decision
th
taken in 194 (Special) Syndicate Meeting of the respondent
th
No.3-University held on 24 December, 2024 (Annexure-D).
Hence, this petition is filed by the petitioner-Association.
4. The facts for adjudication of Writ Petition No.9176
of 2026 are as follows:
4.1. It is the case of petitioners that the petitioners are
the Members of the Senate of the respondent No.3-University
having power to review the policies of the respondent No.3-
University from time to time and to suggest measures for
improvement and development of the respondent-University.
It is stated in the petition that the petitioners who are the
members of the Senate of the respondent No.3-University are
th
being aggrieved by the decision taken in the 194 (Special)
th
Syndicate Meeting held on 24 December, 2024 for excluding
them for conducting inspection as to continuation of affiliation
of the institutions.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
4.2. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the
Syndicate while deciding and passing the impugned
decision/resolution have not obtained the assent of the Senate
as required under Sections 23 and 34 of the RGUHS Act and
though the Senate got power to make, amend or repeal
statutes as required under Section 23(2)(iii) of the RGUHS Act.
Therefore, petitioners contended that any decision/resolution
by any Committee without the confirmation by the Senate in
the meeting has no legal effect as per Section 62 of the RGUHS
Act and as such, the case of the petitioners is that, excluding
the members of the Senate from Local Inspection Committee as
to take decision on the continuation of affiliation is bad in law.
Therefore, this petition is filed by members of the Senate of the
respondent No.3-University seeking interference of this Court
th
to quash the impugned decision taken in 194 Syndicate
th
(Special) Meeting held on 24 December, 2024.
5. Heard Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of Sri. T. Krishna, appearing for the petitioner-
Association in WP No.7165 of 2026 and respondent No.4 in WP
No.9176 of 2026; Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel on
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
behalf of Sri. Rajaram S., appearing for respondents 4 to 21 in
WP No.7165 of 2026 and petitioners in WP No.9176 of 2026;
Smt. Sukanya Baliga B., learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1-Government; Sri.
M.S. Devaraju, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2
and 3 in WP No.7165 of 2026; Smt. Mamatha Kulkarni, learned
counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 in WP No.9167 of
2026; and Sri. Nithin A.M., learned counsel appearing for
respondents 22 and 23 in Writ Petition No.7165 of 2026.
6. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these
petitions are referred to as per their ranking in Writ Petition
No.7165 of 2026.
7. Sri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner-Association contended that, Section 45(6) of
the RGUHS Act provides for grant of permanent affiliation to
institutions which were affiliated continuously for more than
five years and fulfill all the conditions of affiliation. In this
regard, he refers to proviso to Section 45(6) of the RGUHS Act
and contended that the respondent-University has issued an
erroneous order appointing the Senate Members as the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
Chairman of the Local Inspection Committee and therefore, the
said letter issued by the respondent No.2 is contrary to decsion
th
taken in 194 (Special) Syndicate Meeting of the respondent
th
No.3-Univeristy held on 24 December, 2024.
8. Nextly, it is contended by learned Senior Counsel
Sri. Udaya Holla, appearing for the petitioner-Association that,
th
as per the decision of the Syndicate Meeting dated 24
December, 2024, it was decided that, for continuation of
affiliation to the respective colleges, a Team of Experts shall be
constituted and such Team should not be either from Senate,
Academic Council and concerned Faculty. Learned Senior
Counsel further submits that, ignoring the decision of the
th
Syndicate Meeting dated 24 December, 2024, the respondent
No.2-University had issued the letter appointing the Senate
Members as Chairman of the Local Inspection Committee. It is
the categorical arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner-Association that the Senate Members can be
a part of the Local Inspection Committee for inspection of fresh
colleges only and not in respect of continuation of affiliation of
the colleges and therefore, the said aspect of the matter was
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
ignored by the respondent No.2 while issuing the impugned
letter and thereby included the Senate Members as a part of
Local Inspection Committee for continuation of affiliation for the
colleges. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel sought for
interference of this Court.
9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Uday Holla, appearing
for the petitioner-Association, further, contended that the
respondent-University framed statutes. Statute 1.1 to 1.35
sets out the powers and responsibilities of the Senate. In this
regard, learned Senior Counsel contended that, there is no
provision in the statute conferring power on the Senate
regarding the affiliation and inspection of the Colleges. On the
other hand, learned Senior Counsel contended that, Statute
2.1(2) specifies that the Syndicate shall have power regarding
affiliation and inspection of colleges and registration of
graduates. Referring to the facts of the case, it is contended by
learned Senior Counsel that the inspection proposed by the
respondent-University was for continuation of affiliation and not
for fresh affiliation and therefore, the Statute empowers only
the Syndicate to decide as to who should conduct the
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
inspection of the college. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel
submits that the decision of the respondent No.2-University in
th
its Communication dated 25 February, 2026 (Annexure-F) is
contrary to Statute. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner-Association, sought for interference
of this Court.
10. Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for respondent-Members of the Senate submits that the
impugned Resolution passed by the respondent-University
excluding the Senate Members to be a part of the Local
Inspection Committee to conduct inspection of the colleges for
grant of continuation of affiliation is contrary to the RGUHS Act.
It is contended by learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.P. Hegde that
the Syndicate of the respondent-University has no sanctity to
pass such resolution as the Senate alone being a legislative
body shall have power to institute and confer degrees,
recommendation of the Syndicate to confer Honorary Doctorate
or other Academic distinctions. It is also argued by learned
Senior Counsel Sri. P.P. Hegde that, since from the year-1996,
the Senate Members were the part of the Local Inspection
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
th
Committee, however, in view of the decision taken in 194
th
(Special) Syndicate Meeting held on 24 December, 2024 in
th
terms letter dated 30 December, 2024, power of the Senate
Members to inspect the colleges being a members of the Local
Inspection Committee has been curtailed, which is arbitrary and
violative of the RGUHS Act.
th
11. Referring to the earlier 186 Syndicate Meeting,
learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.P. Hegde submits that the
resolution has been passed to appoint three members of Local
Inspection Committee Team including the Senate Members and
th
therefore, the new 194 Meeting of the Syndicate, allowing the
Senate Members only for the fresh colleges and thereby
excluding for the renewal of affiliation of the colleges is
contrary to RGUHS Act. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent-Senate Members further contended that the Senate
being a legislative body, shall authorise a syndicate to appoint
such members of the Local Inspection Committee and without
there being such authorisation by the Senate, the Syndicate
th
has no power to pass such Resolution like 194 Syndicate
Meeting. Therefore, while inviting the attention of the Court to
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
Section 23 of the RGUHS Act, particularly to Section 23(2)(iii),
it is contended by learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.P. Hegde that
the Senate has power to make, amend or repeal statutes and
therefore, pointed out about the deficiency in the impugned
decision/resolution.
12. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel
Sri. P.P. Hegde that the petitioner-Association cannot seek a
relief from this Court to direct the respondent-University to
amend a statute/rules/act, which is in the domain of legislative
body and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition filed by
the petitioner-Association.
13. It is also argued by learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.P.
Hegde that the averments made in the representation dated
th
04 February, 2026 by the petitioner-Association cannot be
accepted as the petitioner-Association has sought for amending
the statute, which cannot be accepted by this Court.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition filed by the
petitioner-Association.
14. Per contra, Sri. M.S. Devaraj and Smt. Mamatha
Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondent-University
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
submits that, there is no mandatory provision in the statute as
to who should be the member of Local Inspection Committee to
conduct inspection before granting an order for continuation of
affiliation to the colleges. It is argued that, in the absence of
such provision in the statute, the Syndicate by exercising power
under Statute No.2.21 has passed the impugned Resolution in
th th
the 194 Syndicate Meeting held on 24 December, 2024. It is
also argued by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
University that the impugned Resolution was passed during the
year-2024 and has been acted upon by the concerned during
the previous Academic year while conducting inspection and
therefore, the resolution has to be considered as valid and
legal.
15. It is also argued by learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-University that, no statutory rules have been
violated while passing the impugned resolution. By referring to
Section 45(6) of the RGUHS Act, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-University argued that the said provision is
discretionary. It is also argued that, the provisions of the
RGUHS Act do not expressly ousting the Senate members to
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
the inspection by the Local Inspection Committee as to
continuation of affiliation to the respective colleges.
Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.
16. Sri. Nithin A.M., learned counsel appearing for
respondents 22 and 23 invited the attention of the Court to the
legal opinion of the Law Officer of the respondent-University
and argued that the anomaly caused as to discrepancy between
the Senate and the Syndicate is on account of the absence of
express provision in the RGUHS Act to exclude the Senate
Members and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
17. Smt. Sukanya Baliga B., learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1-State
argued in the lines of respondent-University.
18. In the light for submission made by learned counsel
appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of prayer
made in both the petitions, the interpretation of the subject
th th
194/IX(1) in 194 (Special) Syndicate Meeting held on 24
th
December, 2024 as per the letter dated 30 December, 2024
issued by the respondent-University is to be considered in
these petitions. The scheme of the RGUHS Act provides for
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
establishing the colleges for the purpose of ensuring proper and
systematic instructions, teaching, training and research in
modern medicine and Indian systems of medicines in the State
of Karnataka. Section 2(a) of the RGUHS Act provides for
definition of 'Affiliated College'. Section 2(k) of the above act
provides for definition of 'Statutes', 'Ordinances' and 'Rules'
made under the RGUHS Act. Section 21 of the RGUHS Act
provides for definition of 'The Senate'. Section 23 of the
RGUHS Act reads as under:
23. Powers and functions of the Senate .-
(1) The Senate shall have power to review from time to
time the policies of the University and to suggest
measures for the improvement and development of
the University and to consider and pass resolutions
on the annual accounts and audit reports of the
University.
(2) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act
the Senate shall have the powers,-
(i) to institute and confer degrees, diplomas and
other academic distinctions;
(ii) to confer, on the recommendation of the
Syndicate, honorary degrees or other
academic distinctions;
(iii) to make, amend or repeal Statutes;
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
(iv) to consider the financial estimates prepared
by the Syndicate and pass resolutions
thereon;
(v) to confer on the recommendation of the
Syndicate the title of Professor of Meritus;
(vi) to exercise such other powers and perform
such other duties as may be conferred by the
Statutes, Ordinances and Rules.
(emphasis supplied)
19. Perusal of the aforementioned provision under
Section 23 of the RGUHS Act , makes it clear that the Senate is
a legislative body to formulate polices of the University and
have power to make, amend or repeal statute.
20. Section 24 of the RGUHS Act provides for
composition of the Syndicate. Section 25 of the RGUHS Act
provides for powers and functions of the Syndicate, which is a
principal executive body of the University. The aforementioned
aspect would makes it clear that the Senate under Section 21
of the RGUHS Act is having an enormous power to legislate,
amend or modify the rules of the Statute. Section 33 of the
RGUHS Act provides for functioning of the University which is
subject to the provisions of the RGUHS Act. Section 33(g) of
the Act empowers the statute to provide for conditions of
affiliation of colleges or withdrawing the same. Perusal of
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
Section 34 of the RGUHS Act provides for formulation of the
statute or amend and repeal the existing statute. Section
34(2) of the Act makes it clear that the every statute passed by
the Senate shall require the approval of the State Government
and the assent of the Chancellor. Section 35 of the RGUHS Act
provides for the promulgation of Ordinance by the Syndicate.
Section 45 provides for affiliation of colleges and Section 45(2)
of the Act empowers the syndicate to conduct an enquiry by
competent person and after enquiry, consideration of report by
the Local Inspection Committee. In furtherance of the same,
after obtaining the opinion of the Academic council, the decision
as to grant or refusal of the affiliation has to be considered.
However, the entire exercise has to be approved by the
Government so as to take ultimate decision in the matter. It is
also to be considered that, as per Section 45(7) of the RGUHS
Act, the Senate is having power to take decision in the matter
concerning the affiliation of the College.
21. In the light of the submission made by learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the parties, the statute referred to
by learned Senior Counsel Sri. Uday Holla, appearing for the
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
petitioner-Association in WP No.7165 of 2026 shall conform and
within the ambit of the power to be exercised by the Senate. It
is also to be noted that, Section 33 has to be read along with
Section 23 of the RGUHS Act, wherein the plenary power is
vested with the Senate, as the Senate is empowered to take
decision on the policy matters of the respondent-University
including the fiscal aspect. Section 23(2)(iii) of the RGUHS Act
empowers the Senate to make, amend or repeal statutes.
Hence, any resolution passed under the Statute by the
Syndicate must conform to the power to be exercised by the
Senate under the RGUHS Act and therefore, I find force in the
submission made by learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.P. Hegde,
appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No.9176 of 2026.
22. Though the several grounds have been urged by
learned Senior Counsel representing the parties as to the
th
impugned decision taken in 194 Special Syndicate Meeting
th th
held on 24 December, 2024 in terms of letter dated 30
December, 2024, the decision taken by the Syndicate to
exclude the Members of the Senate while conducting Local
Inspection by the competent body consisting of experts,
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
excluding the Senate members is bad in law. It is to be noted
that the intention of the Syndicate to exclude the members of
the Senate as per the decision/resolution in term of letter dated
th
30 December, 2024 has to be read down to include the
members of the Senate being a legislative body for looking
after the affairs of the respondent-University. Therefore, by
looking into the provisions contained under the RGUHS Act, and
further, without the Report of an inspection by the enquiry
committee, the affiliation of college cannot be continued or
modified, so also withdrawn. In this regard, it is a mandatory
on the part of the Syndicate to constitute a Local Inspection
Committee consisting of each one member from the Senate,
Academic Council and consult faculty before taking decision to
grant or not to grant affiliation so also, for continuation of
affiliation is concerned.
th
23. Therefore, the decision/resolution taken in 194
th
(Special) Syndicate Meeting held on 24 December, 2024 in
th
terms of letter dated 30 December, 2024, excluding the
Senate Members from Local Inspection Committee for
continuation of affiliation is bad in law as the Nominee of the
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
Senate Members is very much required in a Local Inspection
Committee for affiliation of fresh colleges as well as for
continuation of affiliation.
24. It is also to be noted that, even for continuation of
affiliation is concerned, the Members in the Local Inspection
Committee have to verify the entire records pertaining to the
various requirements under the RGUHS Act and even, if there is
any lacuna in compliance of the mandatory provisions under
the RGUHS Act, it is the duty of Local Inspection Committee to
withdraw the affiliation of the College concerned. Therefore,
even for continuation of affiliation, entire procedure as to grant
affiliation of fresh college, has to be followed by the Local
Inspection Committee. In that view of the matter, excluding
the Member of the Senate would affect the foundation for
decision making process as to grant or otherwise as to
affiliation. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by
learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.P. Hegde, appearing for
petitioners in WP No.9176 of 2026.
25. Insofar as the arguments advanced by learned
Senior Counsel Sri. Uday Holla, appearing for the petitioner-
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
Association as to representation at Annexure-E, I have carefully
th
examined the representation dated 04 February, 2026
(Annexure-E) addressed by the petitioner-Association, wherein,
the petitioner-Association has sought for a direction to the
respondent-University to amend the Principal Act, which cannot
be accepted since the legislative body of the respondent-
University is the sole authority to take decision in the matter as
to make law, amend or modify any existing law. Therefore,
this Court, shall not direct the legislative wing of the
respondent-University to make an amendment to the Act in
terms of the claim made by the petitioner-Association in its
th
representation dated 04 February, 2026.
26. It is well settled principle in law that, while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this Court cannot direct the legislature to enact law on a
particular subject in a particular manner. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs. K.
PUSHPAVANAM AND OTHER reported in (2023) 20 SCC 736
at paragraph 13 held as follows:
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
"12. The law regarding power of the writ court to
issue a mandate to the legislature to legislate is well
settled. No Constitutional Court can issue a writ of
mandamus to a legislature to enact a law on a particular
subject in a particular manner. The Court may, at the
highest, record its opinion or recommendation on the
necessity of either amending the existing law or coming
out with a new law. The law has been laid down in this
behalf in several decisions including a decision of this
Court in the case of Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare
Association v. Union of India & Anr. and State of Jammu
and Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki and others. The only exception
is where the Court finds that unless a rule making power
is exercised, the legislation cannot be effectively
implemented."
27. It is also to be noted that, Section 34 of the RGUHS
Act provides as under:
"34. Statutes, how made .-
(1) The Senate may from time to time, either on its
own motion or on the submission of the Syndicate, make
new Statutes or amend and repeal existing ones.
(2) Every Statute passed by the Senate shall be
sent to the State Government for submission to the
Chancellor for assent. The State Government shall
transmit the Statutes along with its comments to the
Chancellor within three months of the date on which it
received the Statutes from the University. The Chancellor
may within one month of the date of receipt of the
Statutes from the Government give or withhold his assent
thereto or refer it to the Senate for further consideration.
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
(3) No Statutes passed by the Senate shall have
validity until assented to by the Chancellor and it shall
come into force on the date of its publication in the
Official Gazette or such other date as the Chancellor may
fix."
28. Perusal of the aforementioned provision makes it
clear that, for amending or repealing the statute, the Syndicate
shall submit its proposal to the Senate and the Senate alone
has the power to give assent and thereafter, such resolution
along with the recommendation of the Senate shall be placed
before the State Government for assent. In that view of the
matter, as per the Statute No.34 of the Statutes, any
Resolution by any Committee shall not become final unless the
same is confirmed by the Senate in the meeting. Therefore, the
th
impugned decision/resolution of the 194 (Special) Syndicate
Meeting, excluding the Senate members for the Local
Inspection Committee insofar as continuation of affiliation of
the college is contrary to law. In the result, I pass the
following:
O R D E R
i) Writ Petition No.7165 of 2026 dismissed;
ii) Writ Petition No.9176 of 2026 allowed;
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22339
WP NO.7165 OF 2026
C/W
WP NO.9176 OF 2026
HC-KAR
th
iii) Impugned decision taken in 194 (Special)
th
Syndicate Meeting held on 24 December,
th
2024 in terms of letter dated 30 December,
2024 by the respondent-University is hereby
quashed insofar as excluding the members of
the Senate as a part of Local Inspection
Committee for grant of continuation of
affiliation of colleges is concerned.
iii) The decision taken by the Syndicate of the
respondent-University in derogation of the
observation made above, excluding the Senate
Members in respect of continuation of
affiliation, if any, shall stand quashed.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 68