Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Chancellor’s appointment was void for lack of Visitor approval, the 2014 dissolution order was validly made under Section 48, and the High Court’s remand to the Single Judge was unlawful.

Summary

The Chandra Mohan Jha (CMJ) University was established in 2009, but its sponsor appointed a Chancellor without the required approval of the Visitor (the Governor of Meghalaya). The Supreme Court examined whether this appointment violated Section 14(1) of the CMJ University Act, 2009, and whether the State Government’s dissolution order of 31 March 2014 complied with the procedural requirements of Section 48 and the Court’s earlier directions. The Court held that the Chancellor’s appointment was void for lacking Visitor approval and that the dissolution order was validly made after proper show‑cause notices and consideration of the Visitor’s recommendations. It further found that the High Court’s remand of the matter to a Single Judge for fresh merit‑determination was unwarranted, as the Division Bench had already decided the case on its merits. Consequently, the appellants’ civil appeal was dismissed, the State’s appeal was allowed, and the remand order was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the appointment of the Chancellor of CMJ University complied with the procedure mandated by Section 14(1) of the CMJ University Act, 2009.
Whether the dissolution order dated 31 March 2014 was passed in accordance with the procedure under Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009 and the Supreme Court’s directions in SLP(C) No. 19617 of 2013.
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court of Meghalaya was justified in remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration on merit while allowing the writ appeal.

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University was made with due adherence to the procedure, as mandated by law; whether the dissolution order dated 31st March, 2014 was passed with due adherence to the procedure provided under Section 48 of Act, 2009 and in compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13th September, 2013 in SLP(C) No. 19617 of 2013 titled as “CMJ Foundation & Ors. v. State of Meghalaya and Ors.”; whether the Division Bench of the High Court of Meghalaya was justified in

Subjects

Chancellor appointmentVisitor approvalSection 14(1)Section 48University dissolutionDue processLegal fictionDeemed approvalWednesbury principleRemand orderHigher education law

Judgment

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1020 : 2025 INSC 211

CMJ Foundation and Others
v.
State of Meghalaya and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2024)
13 February 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University
was made with due adherence to the procedure, as mandated
by law; whether the dissolution order dated 31st March, 2014
was passed with due adherence to the procedure provided under
Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009 and in compliance of
the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13th September,
2013 in SLP(C) No. 19617 of 2013 titled as “CMJ Foundation &
Ors. v. State of Meghalaya and Ors.”; whether the Division Bench
of the High Court of Meghalaya was justified in remanding the
matter to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration on merit,
while allowing the Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017.

Headnotes†
Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 – s.14(1) –
Non-compliance with – Appointment of the Chancellor of the
CMJ University, if was non-est and void ab initio:
Held: Yes – Under s.14(1), the Sponsor must appoint a person
suitable to be appointed as the Chancellor of the University,
however, such appointment is ‘subject to the approval’ of the
Visitor – Thus, the appointment of the Chancellor, made by the
University, shall require mandatory approval by the Visitor failing
which, such appointment would be non est in the eyes of law – The
phrase ‘subject to’ means ‘conditional upon’ in law – Therefore,
the appointment of Chancellor was conditional upon the approval
of the Visitor – The Visitor is not merely a titular head and the
appointment of any person as Chancellor by the Sponsor would
attain validity only upon the approval of the Visitor – However,
in the present case, the Visitor’s approval was never granted
for the appointment of the Chancellor of the University – Thus,
the procedure prescribed u/s.14(1) for the appointment of the
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1021

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

Chancellor was not duly followed by the CMJ University – Division
Bench of the High Court rightly declared the appointment of the
Chancellor of the CMJ University as invalid and non-est in the
eyes of law – To this extent, the impugned judgment does not
suffer from any infirmity. [Paras 36, 39, 44, 46]

Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 – s.48(2) – State
Government dissolved the CMJ University vide order dated
31.03.2014 – Aforesaid dissolution order, if was passed
adhering to the procedure provided u/s.48 and in compliance of
the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2013
in SLP(C) No.19617 of 2013 wherein it took cognizance of
the recommendations issued by the Visitor indicating the
irregularities committed by the CMJ University and directed
the State Government to take appropriate action and pass a
speaking order u/s.48, after giving due notice and opportunity
of hearing to the appellants:
Held: Yes – On facts, proper opportunity to show cause and take
necessary measures for rectification was extended to the appellants
against the proposed action of dissolution – State Government
examined the replies to the show cause notices and passed the
well-reasoned order dated 31.03.2014, by taking recourse to
the powers conferred by s.48(2), dissolving the CMJ University
with immediate effect on the grounds that the appellants neither
satisfactorily explained the allegations set out in the show cause
notices, nor could they provide adequate justification for the evident
anomalies and irregularities – Also, the reminder letter dated
03.06.2013 issued by the State Government was in compliance
with s.48(2) – Decision of the State Government dated 31.03.2014
dissolving the CMJ University, affirmed – Educational Institution –
Dissolution. [Paras 55, 56, 58, 59]

Practice and Procedure – Remand of the matter, when not
proper – Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was
justified in remanding the matter to the Single Judge for
reconsideration on merit, while allowing the Writ Appeal:
Held: By way of the impugned judgment, the Division Bench had
quashed and set aside the judgment dated 16.07.2015 passed by
the Single Judge and upheld the procedure followed by the State
Government in ordering the dissolution of the University u/s.48 –
Division Bench was fully justified in quashing and setting aside the
1022 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Single Judge which had
set aside the dissolution order dated 31.03.2014 and the show
cause notices issued to the University by the State Government –
However, it remanded the matter to the Single Judge for taking
appropriate decision regarding the validity of order dissolving the
University on merit, observing that the Single Judge only examined
the dissolution order on procedural framework and did not enter
into the merits of the said decision – The remand to the Single
Judge was entirely unjustified and unwarranted as the controversy
in the present case was exhaustively examined and conclusively
determined on merits by the Division Bench, leaving no substantive
questions or unresolved issues for re-determination on merits by
the Single Judge – Thus, once the Division Bench had approved
the procedure adopted by the State, in passing the dissolution
order, the exercise of remand was an empty formality – Order
of remand legally flawed and untenable – Wednesbury Principle.
[Paras 60-65]

Interpretation of Statutes – Chandra Mohan Jha University
Act, 2009 – Absence of a deeming provision creating a legal
fiction – Legal fiction can only be created by a statute and not
by judicial interpretation – Plea of the appellants that repeated
requests were made to the Visitor of the CMJ University seeking
approval for the appointment of the Chancellor and a letter was
also sent stating that if the Visitor did not provide approval
within the specified date, it would be deemed as approval –
However, there was no response – Thus, the appellants acting
in a bona fide manner assumed that such inaction/omission
on part of the Visitor amounted to a ‘deemed approval’ for
the appointment of the Chancellor:
Held: Such contention is misplaced and unsubstantiated by
law – There is no deeming provision in the Act creating such legal
fiction as was assumed by the appellants – In the absence of any
statutory flavour, a provision cannot be interpreted to create a
legal fiction – Creating a fiction through judicial interpretation will
amount to legislation, which is exclusively the domain of legislature.
[Paras 42, 43]

Case Law Cited
V. Balasubramaniam & Others v. Tamilnadu Housing Board & Others
[1988] 1 SCR 228 : (1987) 4 SCC 738; Trilochan Mishra etc. v.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1023

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

State of Orissa & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 733; Union of India & Ors. v.
M/s Bhimsen Walaiti Ram [1970] 2 SCR 594 : AIR 1971 SC 2295;
State of Orissa & Ors. v. Harinarayan Jaiswal & Ors. [1972] 3 SCR
784 : AIR 1972 SC 1816; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Vijay Bahadur
Singh & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1234; Laxmikant & Ors. v. Satyawan &
Ors. [1996] 3 SCR 532 : AIR 1996 SC 2052; K.R.C.S. Balakrishna
Chetty & Sons & Co. v. State of Madras [1961] 2 SCR 736 : 1960
SCC OnLine SC 179; Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd. [2013]
10 SCR 73 : (2013) 10 SCC 253; Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v. Modern
Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. [2010] 13 SCR
621 : 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1169; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham
[1997] Supp. 3 SCR 549 : 1997 SCC OnLine SC 135; Gohil
Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [2017] 3
SCR 401 : (2017) 13 SCC 621; Nadekerappa since Deceased by
LRs. and Ors. v. Pillamma since Deceased by LRs. and Ors. [2022]
14 SCR 1046 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 387 – relied on.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. v. Friends Coop. Housing
Society Ltd. & Anr. [1995] 3 SCR 729 : (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 456;
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh & Anr. [2003] 1
SCR 593 : (2003) 4 SCC 239; Ashok Kumar Das & Ors. v. University
of Burdwan & Ors. [2010] 3 SCR 429 : (2010) 3 SCC 616; Chet
Ram Vashist v. MCD and Another [1981] 1 SCR 1073 : (1980) 4
SCC 647; CMJ Foundation & Ors. v. State of Meghalaya and Ors.,
Order dated 13.09.2013 of Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 19617
of 2013 – referred to.

List of Acts
Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009; University Grants Act,
1956; Meghalaya Private Universities (Regulation of Establishment
and Maintenance of Standards) Act, 2012.

List of Keywords
Sections 14 (1), 48 of the Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009;
Chandra Mohan Jha Foundation; Chandra Mohan Jha University;
CMJ University; Chancellor of the University; Appointment of
Chancellor; Due adherence to the procedure; Visitor; Ex-Officio;
Governor ex-officio Visitor; Visitor’s approval; Mandatory approval;
Sponsor; ‘subject to’; Subject to the Approval; ‘Conditional upon’;
Deeming provision; Deemed Approval; Legal fiction; Dissolution;
Dissolution Order; Irregularities; Anomalies; Deficiencies; Management
1024 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of the CMJ University; Reconsideration on merit; Remand Order;
Non Est; Void ab inito; Wednesbury Principles; Compliance; Directions;
Adjudication on Merits.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2021 of the High Court
of Meghalaya at Shillong in WA No. 14 of 2017

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Anupam Lal Das, Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Advs., Philemon
Nongbri, Ahanthem Henry, A. Rohen Singh, Ms. Anne Mathew,
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Atul Dong, Aniket Patel.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv., Philemon Nongbri, Ahanthem Henry,
A. Rohen Singh, Ms. Anne Mathew, Ms. Pragati Neekhra,
Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Mehta, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the
following parts: -

INDEX*

A. FACTUAL MATRIX ............................................................... 3

B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS ...... 17

C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-
STATE ..................................................................................... 22

D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION .......................................... 26

E. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ............................................ 27

* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1025

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

ISSUE No. I: “Whether the appointment of the Chancellor
of the CMJ University was made with due adherence to the
procedure, as mandated by law”? ......................................... 27

ISSUE No. II: “Whether the dissolution order dated 31st
March, 2014 was passed with due adherence to the
procedure provided under Section 48 of the CMJ University
Act, 2009 and in compliance of the directions issued by this
Court vide order dated 13th September, 2013 in SLP(C) No.
19617 of 2013 titled as “CMJ Foundation & Ors. v. State
of Meghalaya and Ors.”? ................................................. 35

ISSUE No. III: “Whether the Division Bench of the High
Court of Meghalaya was justified in remanding the matter
to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration on merit,
while allowing the Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017”? ................ 44

F. CONCLUSION .................................................................... 47

1. Application for impleadment is allowed.
2. These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and order dated
6th May, 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Meghalaya at Shillong1 in Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017, whereby the
judgment and order dated 16th July, 2015 passed by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition(C) No. 177 of 2014
was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the
learned Single Judge to take appropriate decision regarding the
validity of the order, dissolving the Chander Mohan Jha University,2
on merit preferably within a period of six months.
3. Vide judgment and order dated 16th July, 2015, the learned Single
Judge of the High Court quashed and set aside the order dated 31st

1 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.
2 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘CMJ University’.
1026 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

March, 2014, passed by the Government of Meghalaya3 dissolving
the University and also quashed the show cause notices dated 12th
November, 2013 and 24th January, 2014, issued to the University
by the State Government.
4. This case has a chequered history. To properly appreciate the
controversy involved in this case, it would be essential to set out
the detailed facts, giving rise to these appeals.

A. FACTUAL MATRIX
5. A trust namely Chandra Mohan Jha Foundation4 was registered at
Shillong, Meghalaya in the year 2004. The Meghalaya Legislative
Assembly enacted the Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 20095 on
20th July, 2009 to establish and incorporate the CMJ University in
the State with an emphasis on providing high-quality and industry-
relevant education in various subjects.6
6. The Board of Trustees of the CMJ Foundation appointed Shri
Chander Mohan Jha as the Chancellor of the CMJ University on
29th July, 2009, in terms of Section 14(1) of the Act. 7 Thereafter, on
3rd August, 2009, the appellants sent a letter to the Commissioner
and Secretary, Education Department, Government of Meghalaya,
seeking approval of the Visitor for the appointment of Chancellor. It
is pertinent to note that as per Section 13(1) of the Act, the Governor
of Meghalaya was holding the ex-officio position of Visitor of the
CMJ University.8
7. A reminder was sent to the Visitor vide letter dated 17th November,
2009 and a second reminder dated 09th December, 2009 was sent to
the Officer on Special Duty, Education Department, Government of
Meghalaya, seeking approval of the appointment of the Chancellor.

3 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘State Government’.
4 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘CMJ Foundation’.
5 The Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 (Act No. 4 of 2009). For short ‘the Act’.
6 The subjects inter alia include, Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, Technology, Medical Science and
Paramedical, Management, Finance & Accounting, Commerce, Humanities, Language & Communication,
Applied and Performing Arts, Education, Law, Social Sciences and related areas and to provide matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
7 S. 14: The Chancellor: (1) The Sponsor shall appoint a person suitable to be appointed as the
Chancellor of the University subject to the approval of the Visitor.
8 The ‘Governor of Meghalaya’, hereinafter referred to as ‘Visitor.’
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1027

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

8. Since approval for the appointment of the Chancellor was not
forthcoming despite several reminders, a letter dated 1st April, 2010
was sent by the appellants to the State Government asserting that “In
case the approval is not granted by the Visitor by 25th April, 2010, it
would be deemed that the approval of Chancellor has been granted
by the Visitor”. However, no response was received to the letter
dated 1st April, 2010 from the Visitor, either approving or refusing
the appointment of Chancellor.
9. Notwithstanding all this, the State Government accorded sanction
for the establishment of the CMJ University in accordance with
the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission9 vide
notification dated 17th June, 2010. The UGC vide its letter dated
25th November, 2010, intimated that the CMJ University had been
established by an Act of the State Legislature as a ‘State Private
University’ and was empowered to award degrees under Section
22 of the University Grants Act, 195610 through its main campus,
after approval is accorded by Statutory Bodies and Councils, if so
required.
10. The Visitor sent letters dated 4th April, 2013 and 11th April, 2013, to
the appellants, seeking some information and highlighting that the
appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University was irregular
since the same was never approved by the Visitor. In response
thereto, the appellants submitted their reply, providing the requested
information to the Visitor vide letters dated 9th April, 2013 and 29th
April, 2013.
11. On perusal of the records/information submitted by the appellants,
the Visitor noticed certain serious anomalies and non-conformity
with the State Act, Regulations and Rules. Upon noticing these
anomalies, the Visitor through the Principal Secretary issued a letter
dated 30th April, 2013 under Section 13(3)(b)11 of the Act and issued
the following directions to the CMJ University: -

9 Hereinafter, being referred to as “UGC”.
10 For short, ‘UGC Act’.
11 13. The Visitor: (3)
(a) …….
b) On the basis of the information received by the Visitor, if he is satisfied that any order, proceeding or
decision taken by any authority of the University is not in conformity with the Act, Regulations or Rules,
he may issue such directions as he may deem fit in the interest of the University which will be binding
to all concerned.
1028 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“1. The CMJ University shall recall/withdraw all the degrees
awarded so far and publish this fact in national and local
newspapers at their own cost.
2. The CMJ Foundation shall submit a fresh proposal for
the appointment of the Chancellor along with the correct
Biodata of the candidate recommended and supporting
documents.
3. The CMJ University shall frame rules and procedures for
admission into the M. Phil and Ph. D degree programmes,
allocation of supervisors, course work, evaluation,
assessment and other related matters. in accordance with
the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards
of M.Phil/Ph. D degree) Regulation, 2009.
4. No fresh admission of students shall be undertaken by
the CMJ University till compliance of the above instructions
and till the appointment of the Chancellor in accordance
with Section 14(1) of the CMJ University Act 2009. ”
12. The CMJ University was mandated to comply with the aforesaid
directions and submit a compliance report to the Visitor by 21st
May, 2013. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 30th April, 2013, the
appellants filed Writ Petition(C) No. 106 of 2013 before the learned
Single Judge of the High Court.
13. Learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition(C) No. 106 of
2013 vide order dated 16th May, 2013, holding the letter dated 30th
April, 2013 to be legally sound and directing that until the controversy
is resolved, new students shall not be granted admission in the CMJ
University. The learned Single Judge observed that in admitting
students for the year commencing from 2010-2011 and onwards, the
CMJ University had acted on its own volition without getting approval
for the appointment of the ‘Chancellor’. The relevant observations
from the order dated 16th May, 2013 are reproduced hereinbelow: -
“Section 14(1) of the CMJ University Act, 2009 makes
it obligatory on the part of the University to appoint
Chancellor subject to approval of the Visitor for a period
of five years, which may be extended with prior approval
of the Visitor. The Chancellor will be the head of the
University. By the letter dated 01.04.2010 under Annexure
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1029

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

9, issued by the Secretary, CMJ Foundation addressed
to the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Education Department, Shillong seeking for approval of the
appointment of the Chancellor which may be communicated
to them on or before 25th February, 2010 otherwise it
may be assumed that the governor has accorded his
approval for functioning of the University and also the
appointment of the first Chancellor of the university. The
provisions of the CMJ University Act, 2009, does
not support the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that there would be a “deemed
approval” for appointment of the Chancellor if the
Governor fails to communicate before 25th February
2010. The said provision also does not support such
action of the University in complying (sic) with the
principle “deemed approval” for the functioning of
the University and also the appointment of the first
Chancellor of the CMJ University. The correspondence
would go to show that there is no approval accorded
for the appointment of the Chancellor by the authority
concerned. Moreover, there are no materials placed
before this Court by the petitioner according to the
approval of the appointment of the “Chancellor” by
the “Governor” under the Statute. In absence of which,
it may be assumed that there was no approval of the
appointment of the “Chancellor” by the “Governor”.”
(emphasis supplied)

14. Aggrieved by the order dated 16th May, 2013 passed by the learned
Single Judge, the appellants preferred a Writ Appeal (SH) No. 16
of 2013 before the Division Bench, which was dismissed vide order
dated 31st May, 2013, while making pertinent observations reproduced
below: -
“7. On plain perusal of Section 13(2) of the CMJ Act of
2009, It is clear that the Governor of Meghalaya (Visitor)
shall have the power to call any paper or information
relating to the affairs of the University and also on the
basis of information received by the Visitor, he may issue
such directions as he may deem fit in the interest of the
1030 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

University which will be binding to all concerned. Therefore,
it is very clear that the Visitor of the CMJ University
(Governor of Meghalaya) can call informations from
the University and after receiving the information, he
can issue directions as he may deem fit.
8. Section 14(1) of the CMJ Act of 2009, clearly provided
that the sponsor shall appoint a person suitable to be
appointed as the Chancellor of the University subject to
the approval of the Visitor, It is the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners that
prior approval of the Visitor is not required for appointing
the appellant/writ petitioner No. 3 as the Chancellor of
the CMJ University. However, it is also clear under
Section 14(1) of the CMJ Act of 2009 that the approval
of the Visitor will be required for the appointment of
Chancellor.
9. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that as of
today, there is no approval of the Visitor to the appointment
of appellant/writ petitioner No. 3 as Chancellor of CMJ
University. As stated above it is the case of the appellants/
writ petitioners in the writ petition that as there was a
considerable delay on the part of the Visitor in conveying
the approval of the appointment of appellant/writ petitioners
No. 3 as Chancellor of CMJ University, there should be
a deemed approval for considering the submission of Mr.
Amit Kumar Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/
writ petitioners, We have given our anxious considerable
to the provisions of CMJ Act of 2009, however, we find
that there is no provision under which if there is a
considerable delay in conveying the approval of the
Visitor to the appointment of Chancellor by the Visitor,
there should be a deemed approval.”
(emphasis supplied)

15. In the meantime, on 3rd June, 2013, the State Government issued
a letter to the appellants, seeking compliance with the directions
issued by the Visitor vide letter dated 30th April, 2013, by 10th June,
2013.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1031

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

16. The appellants assailed the order dismissing the writ appeal by filing
a Special Leave Petition12 before this Court. During the pendency of
the said special leave petition, the Visitor (Governor of Meghalaya)
issued comprehensive recommendations to the State Government
vide letter dated 12th June, 2013, to consider dissolution of the CMJ
University on the grounds of mismanagement, maladministration,
indiscipline and failure in enforcement of the objectives of the
University, apart from criminal liability. The Visitor indicated in the
aforesaid letter that the CMJ University had committed the following
irregularities of grave nature: -
“(i) The University functioned from 17/10/2010 with the
self-appointed Chancellor without the approval of the
Visitor in terms of Section 14 (1) of the CMJ University
Act, 2009 on the presumption of “deemed approval” of
the Visitor. This is not legally valid, and the position has
been affirmed by the order dated 16th May, 2013 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya which has further been
upheld by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court
of Meghalaya in their order dated 31st May, 2013.
(ii) It awarded B. Ed degree through Distance Mode without
the requisite approval of the regulatory bodies and without
affiliation. The B. Ed degrees awarded by the CMJ University
were held to be invalid in the eye of Law by the order dated
24th May, 2013 of the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati.
(iii) The Shillong Engineering and Management College
was de-affiliated by NEHU from academic session 2011-
2012. This College, which was in existence prior to the
sanction for establishment of the CMJ University, cannot
be affiliated with the CMJ University. While the fate of the
students of this College was already uncertain in view
of the said de-affiliation, the College continued to make
admissions by misleading the students that the degrees
will be issued by the CMJ University.
(iv) The University had reported that during 2012-2013 it had
awarded PhD degrees to 434 students and enrolled another

12 SLP (C) No. 19617 of 2013.
1032 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

490 students. These figures, though extraordinarily high,
do not reflect the correct position. Information is available
with us that another 29 students have also received PhD
degrees from the University and more information is coming
on a daily basis. So it is obvious that the actual number
of award of and enrolment for, PhD and other programs
will be much higher than was reported. The University
awarded PhD even in subjects like the, Bodo and Punjabi
languages where the guides/faculty are not easily available.
These constitute gross abuse of the university’s power and
violation of the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure
for Awards of M. Phil/ Ph. D Degree) Regulation, 2009.
(v) The University furnished a list of 10 faculty members
with PhD which is inaccurate. One of the faculty members
is only a research scholar at NEHU. The list includes the
Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and other functionaries of the
University as faculty which is quite misleading. In fact, the
University does not have adequate teachers to introduce
courses which it had been doing.
(vi) The University is running several off-campus centres
outside Meghalaya which is not permissible under the
UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards
of Private University) Regulations, 2003 and the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (2005) in the case of Prof.
Yashpal & Anr. Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
(vii) It is offering a distance education programme outside
the boundaries of Meghalaya and outside India. These
actions are in gross violation of UGC Regulations and
guidelines.
(viii) Total students enrolled by CMJ University as per
information submitted by the University in 2010-11:176,
2011-12:469, 2012-13: 2734. All these admissions are
illegal as all its actions are ab initio(sic) void in absence
of a legally appointed Chancellor.
(ix) The University has violated Section 45(3) and Section
46(4) of the CMJ University Act, 2009 by not submitting
the Annual Report and the Annual Accounts/Balance Sheet
and the Audit Report to Visitor.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1033

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

(x) Even after the initiation of actions by the Visitor the
University continued to mislead the students and the public
by press statements. It issued a newspaper advertisement
in the Shillong Times on 22nd April, 2013 claiming it has
not yet awarded any PhD degree to any of the students
enrolled from the State of Assam which is false. Again,
it issued advertisements in newspapers on 2nd May and
16th May, 2013 in matters of holding Convocation and
Award of PhD Degree knowing full well that there can be
no Convocation without the legally appointed Chancellor
and that the admissions of the courses and award of the
degrees were illegal.
(xi) The University has violated Section 41(1) of the CMJ
University Act relating to establishment of Endowment
Fund and indulged in cheating by withdrawing the deposit
of Rs.210 lakhs within days of making the deposit.
(xii) The University repeatedly acted in contravention of
Section 52 of the CMJ University Act 2009 in respect
of maintenance. of standards and other related matters
applicable to private universities.”
17. This Court took cognizance of these comprehensive recommendations
issued by the Visitor and disposed of the Special Leave Petition13
vide order dated 13th September, 2013, thereby, directing the State
Government to take appropriate action and pass a speaking order
under Section 48 of the Act, after giving due notice and opportunity
of hearing to the appellants, within a period of three months from
the date of the order.
18. In compliance with the order dated 13th September, 2013 passed
by this Court, the State Government issued a show cause notice
dated 12th November, 2013 and another supplementary show cause
notice dated 24th January, 2014 to the appellants, who submitted
their detailed replies to the aforesaid show cause notices on 25th
November, 2013 and 4th February, 2014 respectively.
19. The State Government found the replies submitted by the appellants
to be untenable with the conclusion that the allegations levelled in

13 Ibid.
1034 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the show cause notices were not satisfactorily explained by the
appellants and that there existed insurmountable evidence as to
mismanagement, maladministration, indiscipline, fraudulent intent and
failure in the accomplishment of the objectives of the University which
was too overwhelming. Consequently, by exercising powers under
Section 48(2) of the Act, the State Government issued an order on
31st March 2014, dissolving the CMJ University with immediate effect.
20. Being aggrieved with the dissolution of the CMJ University, the
appellants herein filed a Writ Petition(C) No. 177 of 2014 before the
High Court, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide
order dated 16th July, 2015, and the order of dissolution dated 31st
March, 2014 along with the show cause notices dated 12th November,
2013 and 24th January, 2014 were quashed and set aside. The
learned Single Judge observed that the State failed to comply with
the fundamental procedural requirements as provided under Section
48 of the Act, i.e., the principles of natural justice and the obligation
of the administrative authorities to act fairly.
21. The learned Single Judge, further, directed the State Government
to take steps strictly compliant with the provisions of the CMJ
University Act, 2009, the Meghalaya Private Universities (Regulation
of Establishment and Maintenance of Standards) Act, 2012, principles
of natural justice and the obligation of the administrative authorities
to act fairly in the interest of justice in compliance of the judgment
and order dated 13th September, 2013, vide which this Court directed
the State authorities to pass a speaking order under Section 48 of
the Act.
22. Aggrieved, the State Government filed intra-court Writ Appeal No.
14 of 2017 before the Division Bench of the High Court assailing
the order dated 16th July, 2015. The Division Bench vide an interim
order dated 12th June, 2017, stayed the operation of the order dated
16th July, 2015 passed by the Single Bench and directed that the
admission and award of degrees by the CMJ University shall remain
subject to the final judgment to be passed in appeal.
23. Being aggrieved of this interim order dated 12th June, 2017, the CMJ
University approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition,14

14 SLP (C) No. 21890 of 2017.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1035

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

wherein this Court vide order dated 4th September, 2017 granted
interim stay on the effect and operation of the interim order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court. This Court vide another
order dated 13th August, 2018 passed in the aforesaid special leave
petition, extended the stay, and the writ appeal pending before the
High Court of Meghalaya was transferred to the Gauhati High Court
with the consent of both the parties for the reason that Meghalaya
High Court had only two Judges at that time, one of whom had
recused from hearing the case.
24. Pursuant to this Court’s order dated 13th August, 2018, the Writ Appeal
No. 14 of 2017 (in the High Court of Meghalaya) was renumbered
as Writ Appeal No. 266 of 2018 (in the High Court of Gauhati)
and was taken up for consideration by the Division Bench of the
Gauhati High Court, which disposed of the same vide order dated
5th November, 2019, quashing the order dated 16th July, 2015 passed
in Writ Petition(C) No. 177 of 2014 on the ground that the learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Meghalaya had not recorded
the contentions of the appellants herein. The Division Bench of the
Gauhati High Court remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Meghalaya for fresh adjudication on merits,
observing that the interim order passed by this Court would continue.
25. Aggrieved by the remand order, the appellants filed Civil Appeal
No. 3310 of 202015 before this Court. This Court vide order dated
28th September, 2020, allowed the appeal and set aside the remand
order, while transferring the writ appeal from the Division Bench of
the Gauhati High Court back to the Division Bench of the High Court
of Meghalaya for fresh consideration and disposal on merits.
26. Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017 was allowed by the Division Bench of
the High Court of Meghalaya vide judgment and order dated 6 th
May, 2021 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Single
Judge to take appropriate decision regarding the validity of the order
dissolving the CMJ University on merits preferably within a period
of six months. The said judgment dated 6th May, 2021 is assailed
in the present appeal i.e., Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2024, filed by
the appellants.

15 Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10941 of 2020.
1036 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

27. Subsequently, the State Government also filed an appeal i.e., Civil
Appeal No. 9695 of 2024, challenging the Division Bench judgment
dated 6th May, 2021, only to the limited extent of the matter being
remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication.
28. Vide order dated 1st June, 2021, this Court directed the parties to
maintain status quo, as it existed on that date. Leave was granted
on 20th August, 2024.

B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
29. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
advanced the following pertinent submissions for assailing the
impugned order: -
(a) That the University came into existence pursuant to the
enactment of the CMJ University Act, 2009 by the Meghalaya
Legislative Assembly, with an emphasis on providing high-quality
and industry-relevant education in various fields. A huge amount
of money has been invested in creating infrastructure spanning
more than 1.5 lakh square feet built-up area, state-of-the-art
laboratory, a library and modern classrooms at the main campus
of the University for imparting quality education to the students.
(b) That the CMJ University was granted UGC recognition vide
letter dated 25th November, 2010 as a State Private University
and was empowered to award degrees as specified by the UGC
under Section 22 of the UGC Act, through its main campus.
(c) That under Section 14(1) of the Act, the Sponsor is entitled to
appoint a suitable person as the Chancellor of the University
subject to the approval of the Visitor. Therefore, on a bare
reading of this sub-section, it is clear that prior approval is not
required for the appointment of a Chancellor. He further urged
that an appointment subject to approval is valid so long it is
not disapproved. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the
decisions of this Court in (i) U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
& Anr v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Ltd. & Anr16; (ii)
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh & Anr17,

16 1995 Supp (3) SCC 456.
17 (2003) 4 SCC 239.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1037

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

and (iii) Ashok Kumar Das & Ors v. University of Burdwan
& Ors18.
(d) The trustees of CMJ Foundation as early as on 29th July,
2009 had adopted a valid resolution appointing Shri Chander
Mohan Jha as the Chancellor of the CMJ University in terms
of Section 14(1) of the Act. Various representations dated
29th July, 2009, 3rd August, 2009 and 6th October, 2009 were
addressed to the Visitor, seeking approval of the appointment of
the Chancellor of the CMJ University. Thereafter, two reminders
dated 17th November, 2009 and 9th December, 2009 were also
sent to the Visitor seeking approval. However, none of these
communications received any response whatsoever from the
Visitor.
(e) That the appellants sent a letter dated 1st April, 2010, to the State
Government which clearly specified that ‘if the Visitor (Governor
of Meghalaya) failed to accord his approval, it would be assumed
as a ‘deemed approval’ for the functioning of the University and
the appointment of the Chancellor of the University.’ He submitted
that in view of this letter and other correspondences shared with
the State Government, the CMJ University rightfully assumed
‘deemed approval’ to the appointment of the Chancellor.
Consequently, admissions were given to the students, and the
courses concerned commenced. Students who had completed
their respective courses commencing from the academic year
2010-2011 and other students who continued to study in the
CMJ University were granted degrees in accordance with the
mandate of the Act and the UGC recommendations.
(f) That Section 26 of the Act clearly stipulates that no act or
proceeding of any authority of the University shall be deemed
invalid merely on the reason of the existence of any vacancy
of post or defect in the constitution of the authority.
(g) That the respondents did not comply with the directions given
by this Court vide order dated 13th September, 2013 passed in
Special Leave Petition,19 whereby, the State Government was

18 (2010) 3 SCC 616.
19 SLP(C) No. 19617 of 2013.
1038 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

required to proceed strictly in accordance with the Act, after
complying with the mandate of Section 48 of the Act and not
mere paper compliance. To buttress this submission, learned
senior counsel drew our attention to the following observations
made by this Court in the order dated 13th September, 2013:-
“In view of the above, we feel that ends of justice
will be served by directing the State Government to
take appropriate action under Section 48 of the 2009
Act after giving notice and reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners.
The special leave petitions are accordingly disposed
of with direction that within three months from today
the State Government shall, after giving an opportunity
to the petitioners to show cause against the action
proposed to be taken, pass a speaking order under
Section 48 of the 2009 Act.”
(h) As per learned senior counsel, the State Government failed
to comply with the mandatory requirements as provided under
Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 48 of the Act, which deal
with the procedure of dissolution of the University. He urged
that as per Section 48(2) of the Act, it was mandatory that
the State Government on identification of mismanagement,
maladministration, indiscipline, failure in accomplishment of the
objectives of the CMJ University and economic hardships in
the management systems of the CMJ University, should have
issued directions to the management system of the University
for rectification thereof. Only in the event that the directions
were not complied with within such time as may be prescribed,
could the power to wind up the University have been exercised
by the State Government.
(i) That the show cause notices dated 12th November, 2013 and
24th January, 2014 issued to the appellants neither referred to
any particular instance of mismanagement or maladministration
on the part of the CMJ University authorities nor did they
highlight the so-called deficiencies in running and management
of the CMJ University. The appellants submitted detailed replies
to the show cause notices within time, with the assurance
that if any directions were issued in future for rectification
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1039

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

of any alleged shortcoming, the management of the CMJ
University would follow them accordingly. However, the State
Government of Meghalaya vide order dated 31st March, 2014
dissolved the CMJ University with an immediate effect, without
giving reasonable opportunity and liberty to the management
of the CMJ University to rectify the alleged mismanagement
and maladministration as provided under Sub-sections (2)
and (3) of Section 48 of the Act, and therefore, the process
as adopted by the State Government is arbitrary and invalid
in the eyes of law.
(j) That the learned Single Judge, after perusing the material
placed on record including the response of the appellants to the
queries and notices sent by the State Government had rightly
concluded that the principles of natural justice and mandate
of Section 48 of the Act had not been followed before passing
the dissolution order dated 31st March, 2014.
On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants implored the
Court to allow Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2024 and set aside the
impugned order.

C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE
30. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent-State
vehemently and fervently opposed the contentions made on behalf
of the learned senior counsel for the appellants, while advancing
the following submissions:-
(a) That the learned Division Bench vide the impugned judgment
has granted full imprimatur to the procedure adopted by the
State Government in passing the order dated 31st March,
2014, whereby, it dissolved the CMJ University under Section
48(2) of the Act. However, despite holding so, the matter
has been remanded to the learned Single Judge to take an
appropriate decision regarding the validity of the dissolution
order on merits. He contended that once the decision-making
process has been upheld by the learned Division Bench, no
live issue remains for the learned Single Judge to consider
and decide on merit and thus, the remand order is bad in
the eyes of law.
1040 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(b) Learned counsel drew this Court’s attention to the order dated
13th September, 201320 passed by this Court, directing the State
Government to pass a speaking order under Section 48 of the Act,
after giving notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the
appellants. He submitted that this order has been complied with
by the State Government in letter and spirit and the dissolution
order dated 31st March, 2014 has been passed only after giving
a fair opportunity of showing cause to the appellants and for
the reason that several aspects relating to mismanagement and
maladministration as indicated in the directions issued by the
Visitor vide letter dated 30th April, 2013, remained unrectified.
(c) That under Section 14(1) of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of
the University to appoint a Chancellor ‘subject to the approval’ of
the Visitor for a period of five years, which may be extended with
the prior approval of the Visitor. He submitted that Section 14(1)
of the Act clearly stipulates that the appointment of Chancellor
would be conditional upon the approval of the Visitor.
(d) That the appellants do not dispute that the Visitor had never
accorded approval for the appointment of Chancellor under
the Act, and thus, it must be assumed that the appointment of
Chancellor of the University was in gross violation of Section
14(1) of the Act.21
(e) That it is the case of the appellants that the considerable delay
on the part of the Visitor in conveying the approval of the
appointment of Chancellor of the CMJ University, would lead
to a ‘deemed approval’. However, the provisions of the Act do
not countenance ‘deemed approval’ for the appointment of the
Chancellor, and thus, the act of the appellants in assuming a
deemed approval to such unilateral appointment is not tenable
in the eyes of law.
(f) That it is settled law that ‘deeming provision is a legal fiction and
such legal fiction can only be created by a statute’, and therefore,
the presumed approval of the Chancellor’s appointment by
the CMJ University authorities is misplaced. In this regard, he

20 Passed in SLP (C) No. 19617 of 2013.
21 Supra Note 14.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1041

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Chet Ram
Vashist v. MCD and Another22 and Balasubramaniam &
Others v. Tamilnadu Housing Board & Others.23
(g) That the CMJ University has acted unilaterally since its
establishment without getting approval for the appointment of
Chancellor and is illegally admitting students and awarding
degrees for years commencing from 2010-11 and onwards. It is
trite that a university cannot confer degrees to students without
there being a Chancellor of the University. Consequently, all
actions of the CMJ University taken without a duly appointed
Chancellor are illegal and void ab initio.
(h) Section 26 of the Act is only intended to be applied in a
contingency when any post falls vacant for some reason after
it has been initially filled in accordance with the provisions of
the Act. Therefore, the reliance placed by the appellants on
Section 26 of the Act to buttress that the proceedings of the
CMJ University authorities are not invalid, even if the post of
Chancellor is vacant, is misplaced.
(i) That by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 13(3)(a)
of the Act, the Visitor was empowered to call for any paper or
information relating to the affairs of the University and based
on such information, to issue such directions as deemed fit
under Section 13(3)(b) of the Act, which would be binding to
all concerned. In the instant case, the CMJ University failed
to comply with the directions issued by the Visitor vide letter
dated 30th April, 2013.
Concluding his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent-
State implored the Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellants
and, at the same time, allow the appeal filed by the State against
the remand order.
31. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at a bar and have perused the impugned judgment.
With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have
thoroughly examined the documents available on record.

22 (1980) 4 SCC 647.
23 (1987) 4 SCC 738.
1042 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
32. The following key issues are posed for consideration of this Court
in the instant appeals: -
I. “Whether the appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ
University was made with due adherence to the procedure,
as mandated by law”?
II. “Whether the dissolution order dated 31st March, 2014 was
passed with due adherence to the procedure provided
under Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009 and
in compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide
order dated 13th September, 2013 in SLP(C) No. 19617
of 2013 titled as “CMJ Foundation & Ors. v. State of
Meghalaya and Ors.”?
III. “Whether the Division Bench of the High Court of
Meghalaya was justified in remanding the matter to the
learned Single Judge for reconsideration on merit, while
allowing the Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017”?

E. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

ISSUE No. I: “Whether the appointment of the Chancellor of the
CMJ University was made with due adherence to the procedure,
as mandated by law”?
33. There is no dispute that the CMJ University has been established
and incorporated under the CMJ University Act, 2009 enacted by
the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. It is an admitted position that
the appointment of Chancellor of this University was never approved
by the Visitor i.e. the Governor of Meghalaya.
34. Section 2(x) of the Act defines ‘Chancellor’ as Chancellor of the
University appointed under Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 of the
Act reads as under:-
“Section 14: The Chancellor
(1) The Sponsor shall appoint a person suitable to be
appointed as the Chancellor of the University subject to
the approval of the Visitor.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1043

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

(2) The Chancellor so appointed shall hold the office for a
period of five years, which may be extended with a prior
approval of the Visitors.
(3) The Chancellor shall be the head of the University
(4) The Chancellor shall preside at the meeting of the Board
of Governors and shall, when the Visitor is not present,
preside at the convocation of the University for conferring
Degrees, Diplomas, Designations or Certificates.
(5) The Chancellor shall have the following powers, namely:
(a) To call for any information or record;
(b) To appoint the Vice-Chancellor;
(c) To remove the Vice-Chancellor;
(d) Such other powers as may be conferred on him
by this Act made thereunder.”
35. Section 14(1) deals with the appointment of the Chancellor prescribing
that the Sponsor shall appoint a person suitable to be appointed as
the Chancellor of the University ‘subject to the approval of the Visitor’.
Section 14(2) provides that the Chancellor shall hold the office for
a period of five years, which may further be extended with the prior
approval of the Visitor. Section 14(3) declares the Chancellor to
be the head of the University. Section 14(4) gives authority to the
Chancellor to preside at the meetings of the Board of Governors
and to preside at the convocation of the University for conferring
Degrees, Diplomas, Designations or Certificates, if the Visitor is
not present. The powers of the Chancellor are enumerated under
Section 14(5) of the Act.
36. On perusal of the sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, it becomes
crystal clear that the Sponsor must appoint a person suitable to
be appointed as the Chancellor of the University, however, such
appointment is ‘subject to the approval’ of the Visitor. It is evident
from the aforesaid provision that the legislative intent behind the
provision was that the appointment of the Chancellor, made by the
University, shall require mandatory approval by the Visitor failing
which, such appointment would be non est in the eyes of law.
1044 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

37. In the case of K.R.C.S. Balakrishna Chetty & Sons & Co. v. State
of Madras,24 this Court has interpreted the term ‘subject to’ as
‘conditional upon’ in the following terms: -
“Under section 13 an important condition imposed under
the Act is the keeping by the dealer and every person
licensed of true and correct accounts showing the value
of the goods sold and paid by him. Next there is rule 5 of
the General Sales Tax Rules which provided that if any
person desired to avail himself of the exemption provided
in section 5, he had to submit an application in Form I for a
licence and the Form of the licence shows that the licence
was subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules
made thereunder which required the licensee to submit
returns as required and also to keep true accounts under
section 13. This shows that the giving of the licence
was subject to certain conditions being observed by
the licensee and the licence itself was issued subject
to the Act and the rules. But it was contended that the
words “subject to” do not mean “conditional upon”
but “liable to the rules and the provisions” of the Act.
So construed section 5 will become not only inelegant
but wholly meaningless. On a proper interpretation of
the section it only means that the exemption under the
licence is conditional upon the observance of the conditions
prescribed and upon the restrictions which are imposed
by and under the Act whether in the rules or in the licence
itself; that is, a licensee is exempt from assessment as
long as he conforms to the conditions of the licence and
not that he is entitled to exemption whether the conditions
upon which the licence is given are fulfilled or not. The use
of the words “subject to” has reference to effectuating
the intention of the law and the correct meaning, in
our opinion, is “conditional upon”.
(emphasis supplied)

24 1960 SCC OnLine SC 179.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1045

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

38. Further, in the case of V. Balasubramaniam v. T.N. Housing Board,25
this Court observed that:-
“17. ………….In the context in which the words “subject
to approval of the Government appear in Regulation
28(d) of the Regulations they have to be interpreted
as meaning “conditional upon the approval of the
Government”, that is, that unless that approval is
given by the Government the relaxation “would not
be valid because the regulations themselves had been
put into effect after obtaining the approval of the State
Government earlier. The words “subject to” have been
understood by this Court as meaning “conditional upon”
in K.R.C.S. Balakrishna Chetty & Sons & Co. v. State of
Madras. Even if those words are understood as meaning
that it was possible to obtain ex post facto sanction of a
decision already taken by the Board, even then such an
approval should have been given by the State Government
within a reasonable time from the date on which the
decision is taken by the Board……….”
(emphasis supplied)

39. It is clearly discernible from the above precedents that ‘subject to’
means ‘conditional upon’ in law. Therefore, it can safely be inferred
that the appointment of Chancellor was conditional upon the approval
of the Visitor.
40. The term ‘approval’ has been interpreted by this Court in the case of
Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd.,26 in the following manner:-
“10. Approval means confirming, ratifying, assenting,
sanctioning or consenting to some act or thing done
by another. The very act of approval means, the act of
passing judgment, the use of discretion, and determining
as an adjudication therefrom unless limited by the context
of the Statute………”

25 (1987) 4 SCC 738.
26 (2013) 10 SCC 253.
1046 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

41. It is the case of the appellants that despite repeated requests made to
the Visitor of the CMJ University seeking approval for the appointment
of the Chancellor, no action was forthcoming. Therefore, a letter was
sent to the State on 1st April, 2010 stating that ‘if the Visitor did not
provide approval by 25th April 2010, it would be deemed as approval’.
Since no response was received from the Visitor, the appellants
acting in a bona fide manner assumed that such inaction/omission
on part of the Visitor would tantamount to ‘deemed approval’ for
the appointment of the Chancellor. This contention, in our opinion,
lacks merit, has no substance and is thus untenable on the face of
the record.
42. It is trite that in the absence of any statutory flavour, a provision
cannot be interpreted to create a legal fiction in such eventuality,
and creating a fiction through judicial interpretation may amount to
legislation, which is exclusively the domain of legislature. In this
regard, we are benefited by the judgment of this Court in the case
of Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v. Modern Co-operative Group Housing
Society Ltd. and Ors.,27 wherein while interpreting Rule 36(3) of the
Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973, it was held that:-
“8. Rule 36(3) of the Rules, reads as under:
“36. Procedure for expulsion of members- (1)-(2)
(3) When a resolution passed in accordance with
sub-rule (1) or (2) is sent to the Registrar or otherwise
brought to his notice, the Registrar may consider the
resolution and after making such enquiry as to whether
full and final opportunity has been given under sub-
rule (1) or (2) give his approval and communicate
the same to the society and the member concerned
within a period of 6 months. The resolution shall
be effective from the date of approval.”
9. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the
legislature desired that every such resolution sent to
the Registrar by the Society be considered and decided
within a period of 6 months and that the resolution
shall be effective from the date of approval. If approval

27 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1169.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1047

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

is required, the order which is required to be approved by
the statutory authority cannot become effective unless the
approval is accorded.
13. Therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid settled legal
proposition that the resolution passed by the Society
cannot be given effect to unless approval is accorded
by the Registrar as mandatorily required 1972 Act and
the Rules.
14. The Legislature in its wisdom has not enacted any
deeming provision providing that in case the resolution
is not considered and finally decided by the Registrar
within a period of six months, the resolution shall
become effective and operative. It is the exclusive
prerogative of the Legislature to create a legal fiction
meaning thereby to enact a deeming provision for the
purpose of assuming the existence of a fact which does
not really exist. Even if a legal fiction is created by the
Legislature, the court has to ascertain for what purpose
the fiction is created, and it must be limited to the purpose
indicated by the context and cannot be given a larger
effect. More so, what can be deemed to exist under legal
fiction are merely facts and no legal consequences which
do not flow from the law as it stands. It is a settled legal
proposition that in absence of any statutory provision,
the provision cannot be construed as to provide for
fiction in such an eventuality. More so, creating fiction
by judicial interpretation may amount to legislation, a
field exclusively within the domain of the legislature.
(Vide: Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-
processing Service Society Ltd.”
(emphasis supplied)

43. After minutely going through the scheme of the Act, we do not find
any deeming provision creating such legal fiction as was assumed
by the appellants. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellants that the failure of the Visitor to grant approval for
appointment of the Chancellor would lead to a ‘deemed approval’
is totally misplaced and unsubstantiated by law.
1048 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

44. Under the framework of the Act, it is clear that for the appointment
of the Chancellor of the CMJ University, the Sponsor is not the sole
authority, and the Visitor also plays a pivotal role. The Visitor is not
merely a titular head and the appointment of any person as Chancellor
by the Sponsor would attain validity only upon the approval of the
Visitor. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the Visitor’s
approval was never granted for the appointment of the Chancellor
of the University.
45. It is a settled legal proposition that if a statute provides for the
approval of the higher Authority, the order cannot be given effect to
unless it is approved and the same remains inconsequential and a
dead letter in the eyes of law.28
46. In view of the factual and legal discussion made above, we hold
that the procedure prescribed under Section 14(1) of the Act for the
appointment of the Chancellor was not duly followed. Consequently,
the appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University was rightly
declared to be invalid and non-est in the eyes of law by the Division
Bench of the High Court and the impugned judgment to this extent,
does not suffer from any infirmity.

ISSUE No. II: “Whether the dissolution order dated 31st March, 2014
was passed with due adherence to the procedure provided under
Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009 and in compliance of
the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13th September,
2013 in SLP(C) No. 19617 of 2013 titled as “CMJ Foundation &
Ors. v. State of Meghalaya and Ors.”?
47. Before adverting to answer this issue, it is relevant to outline the
material facts that formed the basis for the filing of SLP(C) No. 19617
of 2013 before this Court.
48. The approval of the Visitor was not granted for the appointment of
the Chancellor of the University, even though the CMJ University
was established in 2009. The Governor of Meghalaya, in his capacity
as a Visitor of the University, vide letter dated 30th April, 2013, while

28 Trilochan Mishra etc. v. State of Orissa & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 733; Union of India & Ors. v. M/s Bhimsen
Walaiti Ram, AIR 1971 SC 2295; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Harinarayan Jaiswal & Ors., AIR 1972 SC
1816; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1234; and Laxmikant & Ors. v.
Satyawan & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2052.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1049

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

exercising powers under Section 13(3)(b) of the Act, issued certain
directions29 to the appellants. These directions were given pursuant
to the observance of the following irregularities by the Visitor:-
“1. The Chancellor of the University appointed by the
sponsor does not have the approval of the Visitor. This
is in violation of Section 14(1) of the CMJ University Act,
2009. Consequently, all further (sic) actions of the CMJ
University resulting from the appointment of the Chancellor
are illegal and void ab initio.
2. In the proposal submitted for the appointment of the
Chancellor, by CMJ Foundation in 2009, the Bio-data of
the recommended candidate Shri Chander Mohan Jha
was enclosed stating that’s he is the Director of a number
of colleges within and outside Meghalaya without clearly
indicating their university affiliation. One of these Colleges
viz. The Shillong Engineering and Management College was
de-affiliated by NEHU w.e.f. academic session 2011-2012.
3. The CMJ University has enrolled the following number
of students in various courses.
2010-2011 - 176
2011-2012 - 469
2012-2013 - 2734
All the above admissions are illegal.
4. CMJ University has awarded Ph.D degrees to 434
students during 2012-2013 and has enrolled 490 students
for the Ph.D programme during 2012-2013. On the other
hand the faculty strength of the CMJ University is only 10
teachers with Ph.D qualification. These enrolments and
awards. of Ph.D degrees are in contravention of the UGC
(Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M. Phil/
Ph.D Degree) Regulation, 2009.
5. The CMJ University issued a false and misleading
newspaper advertisement in Shillong Times on April

29 Refer, Para 10 of this judgment.
1050 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

22nd,2013 claiming that the University has not yet been
awarded any Ph. D degree to any of the students enrolled
from the State of Assam. On the other hand this office has
reliable information about the CMJ University has been
awarded a Ph. D degree to candidates from Assam.
6. The CMJ University has not submitted the Annual
Reports to the Visitor in violation of Section 45(3) of the
CMJ University Act 2009.
7. CMJ University has also acted in contravention of
Section 52 of the CMJ University Act,2009 in respect
of maintenance of standards and other related matters
applicable to Private Universities.”
49. The said letter, dated 30th April, 2013, was challenged by the appellants
by filing Writ Petition(C) No. 106 of 2013 before the High Court of
Meghalaya, which was dismissed vide order dated 16th May, 2013.
The appellants filed Writ Appeal (SH) No. 16 of 2013, which was
also dismissed vide order dated 31st May, 2013. Aggrieved by these
decisions, the appellants filed SLP (C) No. 19617 of 2013 before
this Court.
50. This Court disposed of the aforesaid special leave petition vide
order dated 13th September, 2013, after taking into consideration
comprehensive recommendations30 made by the Visitor vide letter
dated 12th June, 2013, regarding the dissolution of the University.
The relevant extracts from the order dated 13th September, 2013,
passed by this Court are reproduced below for reference:-
“In terms of the recommendations made by the Visitor-
cum- Governor, the State Government is required to take
action under Section 48 of the 2009 Act. Shri Ranjan
Mukherjee learned counsel appearing for the Government
of Meghalaya says that he is not in a position to make
a statement whether the State Government has taken
action in furtherance of the recommendations made by
the Visitor-cum-Governor.

30 Refer, Para 14 of this Judgment.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1051

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

In view of the above, we feel that ends of justice will
be served by directing the State Government to take all
appropriate action under Section 48 of the 2009 Act after
giving notice and reasonable opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners.
The special leave petitions are accordingly disposed of
with a direction that within three months from today the
State Government shall, after giving on opportunity to the
petitioners to show cause against the action proposed to
be taken, pass a speaking order under Section 48 of the
2009 Act.”
51. A bare perusal of the order passed in SLP(C) No. 19617 of 2013
unequivocally demonstrates that this Court meticulously considered
the entire factual matrix of events till 13th September, 2013, including
the comprehensive recommendations issued by the Visitor vide letter
dated 12th June, 2013 and thereafter, issued a direction to the State
Government to pass a speaking order under Section 48 of the Act,
after giving due notice and reasonable opportunity to the appellants
herein to show cause against the proposed action.
52. At this stage, Section 48 of the Act, which deals with the ‘Dissolution
of the University’, needs to be referred to, and is reproduced below:-
“Section 48: Dissolution of University:
(1) If the Sponsor proposes dissolution of the University
in accordance with the law governing its constitution (sic)
or incorporation, it shall give at least 3 months notice in
writing to the State Government.
(2) On identification of mismanagement, mal-administration,
in-discipline, failure in the accomplishment of the objectives
of (sic) University and economic hardships in the
management systems of University, the State Government
will issue directions to the management system of the
University. If the directions are not followed within such
time as may be prescribed, the right to take the decision
for winding up of the University would vest in the State
Government.
(3) The manner of winding up of the University would be
such as may be prescribed by the State Government in
1052 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

this behalf. Provided that no such action will be initiated
without affording a reasonable opportunity to show cause
to the Sponsor.
(4) On Receipt of the notice referred to in Sub-section (1),
the State Government shall, in consultation with the AICTE,
UGC or other regulatory bodies make such arrangements
for administration of the University from the proposed date
of dissolution of the University by the Sponsor and until
the last batch of students in regular courses of studies of
the University complete their courses of studies in such
manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes.”
53. Sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act deals with the action on the
part of the Sponsor and provides that, if the Sponsor proposes the
dissolution of the University in accordance with the law governing its
constitution or incorporation, it shall give at least 3 months’ notice
in writing to the State Government. Section 48(2) empowers the
State Government to issue directions to the management of the
University on identification of mismanagement, maladministration,
indiscipline, failure in the accomplishment of the objectives of
the University. This sub-section further vests in the State, the
power to take a decision for winding up of the University, if the
directions issued are not complied with within such time as may
be prescribed. Further, Section 48(3) states that the manner of
winding up of the University would be such as may be prescribed
by the State Government, provided that a reasonable opportunity
to show cause has been afforded to the Sponsor before initiating
the action of winding up.
54. The appellants have set up a case that the State Government did
not follow the mandatory procedural requirements under Section
48(2) of the Act. The appellants submitted their replies to the show
cause notices assuring that if any directions were issued in future
for rectification of any of the alleged shortcomings, the management
of the CMJ University would follow them accordingly. However, the
State Government, without issuing directions to the management
to correct the alleged mismanagement and maladministration and
without affording any reasonable opportunity as provided under Sub-
sections (2) and (3) of Section 48 of the Act, issued the order dated
31st March, 2014, for dissolution of the CMJ University.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1053

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

55. A perusal of the material on record makes it clear that two show cause
notices, the first dated 12th November, 2013, and a supplementary
notice dated 24th January, 2014, were issued by the State to the
appellants pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in SLP
(C) No.19617 of 2013. In response, the appellants submitted their
reply to the show cause notice on 25th November, 2013 and to the
supplementary show cause notice on 4th February, 2014. Thus,
evidently, the proper opportunity to show cause and take necessary
measures for rectification was extended to the appellants against
the proposed action of dissolution.
56. Upon receiving the replies to the aforesaid show cause notices,
the State Government examined the same, and passed a well-
reasoned order dated 31st March, 2014, by taking recourse to the
powers conferred by Section 48(2) of the Act, dissolving the CMJ
University with immediate effect on the grounds that the appellants
neither satisfactorily explained the allegations set out in the show
cause notices, nor could they provide adequate justification for the
evident anomalies and irregularities. The relevant excerpts from the
dissolution order dated 31st March, 2014 are reproduced below: -
“1….
2….
3. The reply of the CMJU regarding the Endowment
Fund is evasive, fabricated and false. It is stated by
CMJU that double the amount of Endowment fund is
invested in fixed deposits. It is noted that 20 FDRs (4 with
Axis Bank and 16 with PNB) amounting to Rs. 4.25 Crore
deposited by the University are not for the purpose of the
Endowment Fund but Term Deposits made by CMJU for
its own benefit. The University has not denied the fact
that it has withdrawn the Endowment Fund prematurely
from Bank of Baroda, which is a clear violation of Section
41(1) of the CMJU Act 2009.
4. The University’s reply regarding off campus centres/
study centres etc., cannot be accepted. It is a fact that
CMJ University has at least five campuses in Meghalaya
namely at Laitumkhrah & Upper Nongthymmai, Shillong,
Jowai, Tura and Jorabat. As per CMJ University Act 2009
1054 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and approval of UGC, the University campus is approved
for Shillong, East Khasi Hills District. Opening of off-campus
centres at Jorabat etc. is a clear violation of Regulation
3.3 of the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of
Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003….
5………
6. The reply of CMJU to the question of conducting B.
Ed, course without requisite approval is ambiguous
and misleading. CMJ University could have inducted
students and conducted B. Ed courses, only after securing
prior approval and recognition from the National Council
for Teacher Education (NCTE). In the absence of such
statutory approval, the B. Ed degrees awarded by CMJU
are invalid and cannot be recognized by the government
agencies. This has jeopardized the career of B. Ed students
and is also contrary to the requirement under Section 7
(1) of CMJ University Act.
7. CMJ University in its reply has claimed that the
Shillong Engineering and Management College (SEMC)
became one of the departments of CMJ University
in the form of Faculty of Technology. Such a vital
decision relating to “Creation, abolition or restructuring of
departments and faculties” can be taken only in accordance
with the statute as provided for, in Section 27 (d) & (h)
and by Rules as provided for in Section 30(a) of the CMJ
University Act 2009. Further, the University has failed to
prove that a formal decision of the Academic Council duly
approved by the Board of Governors has been taken
regarding the conversion of SEMC into one of the CMJU
Faculties.
8. The reply to the Show Cause Notice, has failed to
explain the issue raised in it regarding misleading
newspaper advertisements by making a mere denial.
CMJ University had denied the award of Ph. D degrees to
students from the State of Assam. On the contrary, several
classified advertisements issued by students in the Assam
Tribue dt. 25.4.2013 gave the names of 15 candidates
from Assam, falsifying the statement in the reply. In fact,
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1055

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

some of the PhD students have also appeared before the
Hearing Committee constituted for examining the validity
of their degrees.
9. CMJ University has failed to comply with the
directions of the Visitor issued vide No. GSMG/
CMJU/82/2009/143, dated 30th April 2013 and No.
GSMG/CMJV/82/2009/311 dated 24th May, 2013. The
State Government vide its letter No. EON. 96/2013/132,
dtd. 03/06/2013 asked CMJ University to comply with the
directives of the Visitor cum-Governor, but no action was
taken by CMJ University.
Whereas, the replies by CMJ University to Show
Cause Notices are found to be not tenable. The
insurmountable evidence as to its mismanagement,
maladministration, indiscipline, fraudulent intent and
failure in the accomplishment of the objectives of
the University is too overwhelming. Inspite of the
sufficient time and opportunity given to the CMJU For
rectification and redemption, the issues raised went
unheeded and were rather contemptuously ignored.”
(emphasis supplied)

57. As is evident from the extracted portion above, the State Government
gave full consideration to the reply submitted by the appellants and
the documents available on record. Before passing the dissolution
order dated 31st March, 2014, the State Government analyzed the
explanation provided by the appellants, and evaluated the supporting
evidence. While recording the final determination, it thoroughly and
minutely adverted to the manifest irregularities and discrepancies
portrayed in the running and the management of the CMJ University
and discarded the same with exhaustive reasons.
58. It is apposite to note that the Visitor, vide letter dated 30th April,
2013, had issued specific directions31 to the appellants, mandating
compliance and the submission of a compliance report by 21st May,
2013. However, rather than adhering to these directives and curing

31 Refer, Para 10 of this judgment.
1056 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the defects/shortcomings, the appellants chose to challenge the
said letter in the Court of law and lost in this attempt. Since the
appellants did not comply with the directions and failed to submit the
compliance report within the specified timeframe, a reminder letter
dated 3rd June, 2013 was issued by the State Government, asking for
compliance by 10th June, 2013. It is undisputed that the appellants
did not comply with these directions. In our view, the letter dated 3rd
June, 2013 issued by the State Government evidences wholesome
compliance with the provisions of Section 48(2) of the Act.
59. In light of the above discussion, we hold that the dissolution order
dated 31st March, 2014 has been passed with strict adherence to
the procedural requirements outlined under Section 48 of the Act,
and in compliance with the directions issued by this Court vide order
dated 13th September, 2013 passed in SLP(C) No. 19617 of 2013.
Hence, we affirm the decision of the State Government in dissolving
the CMJ University vide order dated 31st March, 2014.

ISSUE No. III: “Whether the Division Bench of the High Court of
Meghalaya was justified in remanding the matter to the learned
Single Judge for reconsideration on merit, while allowing the Writ
Appeal No. 14 of 2017”?
60. The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment, had
quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 16th July, 2015
passed by the learned Single Judge, while upholding the procedure
followed by the State Government in ordering the dissolution of the
University, and affirming that the said procedure was in sync with
the requirements laid down under Section 48 of the Act.
61. However, the Division Bench, while observing that the learned
Single Judge has only examined the dissolution order on procedural
framework and did not enter into the merits of the said decision,
remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for taking appropriate
decision regarding the validity of order dissolving the University on
merit.
62. In the case of Nadekerappa since Deceased by LRs. And Ors. v.
Pillamma since Deceased by LRs. And Ors,32 this Court held that:-

32 2022 SCC OnLine SC 387.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1057

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

“25. ………. It is settled law that the order of remand
cannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of
remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of
remanding a proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal.
An endeavour has to be made by the Appellate Court to
dispose of the case on merits. Where both sides have led
oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has
to decide the appeal on merits instead of remanding the
case to the lower court or the Tribunal. ...”
63. Based on the discussion made above, we hold that the Division
Bench of the High Court was fully justified in quashing and setting
aside the order dated 16th July, 2015 passed by the learned Single
Judge, which had invalidated the dissolution order dated 31st March,
2014 and the show cause notices dated 12th November, 2013 and 24th
January, 2014. We fully concur with the view taken by the Division
Bench of the High Court in upholding the validity of the procedure
followed by the State Government and the dissolution order itself.
64. This Court is of the considered view that the remand to the learned
Single Judge was entirely unjustified and unwarranted. The
controversy in the present case had been exhaustively examined and
conclusively determined on merits by the Division Bench, leaving no
substantive questions or unresolved issues for redetermination by the
learned Single Judge. As such, there was no requirement for fresh
consideration of the case on merits by the learned Single Judge.
65. Applying the “wednesbury principles”, this Court in the case of
Union of India v. G. Ganayutham,33 held that:-
“27. ….(T)o test the validity of executive action or of
administrative action taken in exercise of statutory powers,
the Courts and tribunals in our country can only go into the
matter, as a secondary reviewing Court to find out if the
executive or the administrator in their primary roles have
arrived at a reasonable decision on the material before them
in the light of Wednesbury and CCSU tests. The choice of
the options available is for the authority; the court/tribunal
cannot substitute its view as to what is reasonable…….”

33 1997 SCC OnLine SC 135.
1058 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

66. Further in the case of Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Ors v. State
of Gujarat and Ors,34 it was held that judicial review lies against a
decision-making process and not against the decision itself.
67. On the touchstone of the precedents discussed above, once the
Division Bench had approved the procedure adopted by the State,
in passing the dissolution order, the exercise of remand would be
nothing short of an empty formality. Therefore, the order of remand
is legally flawed and untenable.
68. We, therefore, hold that the Division Bench of the High Court was
not justified in remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for
reconsideration on merits.

F. CONCLUSION
69. The issues raised for the consideration of this Court are answered
as follows: -
i. The procedure prescribed under Section 14(1) of the Act for
the appointment of the Chancellor was not duly followed by
the CMJ University and consequently, the appointment of the
Chancellor of the CMJ University was non est and void ab initio”.
ii. The dissolution order dated 31st March, 2014 has been passed
with strict adherence to the procedural requirements outlined
under Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009, and in
compliance of the directions issued by this Court in its order
dated 13th September, 2013 passed in SLP(C) No. 19617 of
2013.
iii. The Division Bench of the High Court was not justified
in remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for
reconsideration on merits.
iv. The decision of the State Government dated 31 st March,
2014 in dissolving the CMJ University is affirmed. It would be
open for the State Government to take appropriate measures
pursuant to the affirmation of the decision to dissolve the CMJ
University.

34 (2017) 13 SCC 621.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1059

CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others

70. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above,
Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2024 filed by the appellants is found to be
without merit and deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
71. Conversely, the Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2024, filed by the State,
is allowed and the direction given by the Division Bench to remand
the matter to the Single Bench is set aside. The impugned judgment
is modified to this extent only.
72. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs.
73. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey