Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Private University Act, 2010
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Sections 3, 6, 7 and 13

On perusal of the various provisions of the Ain, 2010 particularly sections 3, 6, 7 and 13, it appears that it is the Government and the University Grants Commission which enjoy the exclusive domain to give approval for the establishment of the Private University at any place in Bangladesh and whether in exercise of their power under the provisions of the Ain, 2010 they can accord permission for establishing independent outer campuses is a matter to be decided by them and since the said two authorities have not taken any decision in the matter, we do not consider it proper and advisable to make any comment of our own in the matter, because such comment may jeopardize the discretion given to exercise of power by the said two statutory authorities under the Ain, 2010. We are of the view that writ- respondent Nos.l and 2 should be allowed to exercise their wisdom in taking decision on the prayer made by the petitioner for establishing outer campuses at Chittagong and Rajshahi in accordance with the provisions of the Ain, 2010 without any interference by this Court. At the same time, we do not approve of the action of the respondents in sitting over the applications of the petitioner so long though they had every right to decide the applications in either way. In the context, we find the observations made by the High Court Division that in the meantime, the petitioner has fulfilled the criteria and also complied with the conditions as mandated in provisio to section 3(5) and sub-section (9) of section 6 of the Ain, 2010 and as such it is entitled to have "permission of independent campus of Rajshahi and Chittagong" indiscreet. When the High Court Division gave direction upon the writ-respondents to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to the opening of independent campuses at Chittagong and Rajshahi in accordance with law, it should not have made any comment as to merit to the entitlement of the petitioner to get approval of establishing the outer campuses at Rajshahi and Chittagong. Furthermore, when the learned Advocate for the petitioner did not press the first part of the Rule as to the shutting down of the outer campuses and as per own statements of the petitioner approval to establish outer campuses of the University at Rajshahi and Chittagong was not given by the concerned writ- respondents, the High Court Division was totally wrong in allowing the order of stay of operation of the impugned order passed earlier to continue till the appropriate decision is taken by the respondents, because by such order of stay in fact the petitioner has been allowed to continue with its academic activities in the unapproved campuses at Rajshahi and Chittagong nullifying the impugned order as well as the provisions of the Ain, 2010. University Grants Commission Anr. Vs. UITS & Anr 20 BLT (AD) 156. ....View Full Judgment

Section 6

Private University Act, 1992
Section-6
We have noticed that respondent No.1- University has already been in full commission on account of assurances from the authority. Some 400 students have been prosecuting their studies in the University. The said respondent has fulfilled most of the conditions required under the Act . And the Grants Commission, as a matter of fact, has also given their opinion in favour of according permission to respondent No.1-University. Private universities tinder similar conditions have already been granted provisional permission and they have been functioning under administrative orders of the Government. In the circumstances permission in the nature of administrative order in respect of this university seems to be a formality which should be forthcoming from the Government in no time in accordance with the application dated 21 May 1995 and the law then in force then in force and in terms of the letter of the Grants Commission dated 14 October 1997. Bangladesh & Ors. Vs. Dhaka International University & Ors. 8 BLT(AD)-198. ....View Full Judgment

Section 6

Private University Act, 1992
Section-6
We have noticed that respondent No.l-University has already been in full commission on account of assurances from the authority. Some 400 students have been prosecuting their studies in the University. The said respondent has fulfilled most of the conditions required under the Act. And the Grants Commission, as a matter of fact, has also given their opinion in favour of according permission to respondent No.1-University.Private universities under similar conditions have already been granted provisional permissionand they have been functioning under administrative orders of the Government. In the circumstances permission in the nature of administrative order in respect of this university seems to be a formality which should be forthcoming from the Government in no time in accordance with the application dated 21 May 1995 and the law then in force then in force and in terms of the letter of the Grants Commission dated 14 October 1997. Bangladesh & Ors. Vs. Dhaka International University & Ors. 8BLT(AD)-198 ....View Full Judgment

Section 7(d)

Private University Act [XXXIV of 1992]
Section 7(d)—
The submission of the learned Counsel that the amended section 7(d) should not receive a retrospective construction, would have applied if a right had already accrued in favour of the respondent. Secretary, Ministry of Education, Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh and others vs North Point University 55 DLR (AD) 94. ....View Full Judgment

Section 46(4)

Without taking due approval of the U.G.C. a private university is barred from offering any course to the respective students.
The Appellate Division held that the High Court Division observed that it is apparent that without taking due approval of the U.G.C. private university is barred from opening, expanding or even amending any course as well as its curriculum and syllabus. Most important of all, before obtaining the said approval no students can be admitted in the respective course. In view of the said legal position non-publication of result of the petitioners of Writ Petition No.613 of 2011 by the Bangladesh Bar Council pursuant to memo dated 08.12.2010 issued by the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 on behalf of the U.G.C. on the ground that neither there was any permission to open 2 years LL.B. (Pass) Course nor due approval was taken as to its syllabus, cannot be termed as unlawful. Accordingly, the civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. .....Darul Ihsan University =VS= Khan A Salam & Others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 25] ....View Full Judgment