1 2025:CGHC:4185-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3143 of 2023 Bharti Vishwavidyalaya A Private University Established Under The Chhattisgarh Private Universities (Establishment And Operation) Act, 2005 Through Its Registrar Dr. Virendra Kumar Swarnkar S/o Shri Ravindra Swarnkar, Aged 36 Years, R/o Village Chandkhuri, Post Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Additional Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Higher Education, State Of Chhattisgarh, C-30, Second And Third Floors, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Through Its Registrar, Krishak Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Chhattisgarh Private Universities Regulatory Commission Through Its Secretary, Madhupillai Chowk In Front Of Ram Nagar, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Ministry Of Education, 109-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001. Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 6 - University Grants Commission (Ugc) Through Its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002. 7 - Indian Council For Agriculture Research Through Its Joint Director (Education) Pusa Campus New Delhi- 110012. ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.3/IGKV : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.5/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. S.G. along with Ms. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.6/UGC : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For Respondent No.7/ICAR : Mr. Rakshit Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 23/01/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the validity of the provisions of Sections 6 & 7 of Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1987 (in short ‘IGKV Act, 1987’) as ultra vires to the Constitution of India due to operation of ICAR norms and UGC notification dated 05.07.2014. The petitioner prayed the following reliefs in his writ petition: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to produce the records pertaining to the case relating to the Petitioner 3 University. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the impugned provisions of Section 6 and 7 of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1987 as ultra vires to the Constitution of India as also inoperative and void due to operation of ICAR Norms and UGC Notification dated 05/07/2014 in the field of Agriculture Education in the University/Higher Education Level. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 15/06/2022 (Annexure P/2) by which the State Government has refused to grant consent to the Petitioner. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the recommendation dated 15/03/2023 (Annexure P/3) to the extent it does not recommend the opening of Agriculture Faculty in the Petitioner University. 10.5 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to grant permission to open agriculture and allied courses in petitioner university and not to create any hindrances for the petitioner for starting Agriculture and allied Faculty for imparting education and awarding degrees in accordance with the ICAR Norms and UGC Regulations. 10.6 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favor of the petitioner may kindly be passed.” 2. The subject matter of the petition is that the petitioner is a private university established under the Chhattisgarh Private Universities (Establishment and Operation) Act, 2005. The petitioner/university was allowed to award degrees by the University Grant Commission (UGC) in various subjects including B.Sc. (Agriculture) and allied courses. 4 The Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR) has issued norms for grant of degrees in agriculture subject in the year 2016. The petitioner requested to State Government for issuance of no objection to start agriculture faculty in the petitioner's university, but the State Government has denied from issuance of such NOC on the ground that as per Sections 6 and 7 of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1987, only the State university i.e. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (IGKV) can impart education and award degrees in the agriculture subject. The IGKV Act has been enacted by the State Government under the legislative heads of Entry 25 of List 3 (concurrent list) read with Entry 14 of List 2 (State list), thus there is two different provisions and therefore, the State law i.e. IGKV Act has to pave way for the ICAR norms that do not prohibit the private universities to impart education in agriculture subject in the university Level. The petitioner university has not been allowed to run the agriculture courses. Therefore, the petition has been filed challenging the validity of Sections 6 and 7 of the IGKV Act, 1987 as ultra vires and also for other reliefs. 3. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 would submit that the subject matter of the present petition has already been adjudicated upon in WPC No. 2269 of 2019 by the coordinate bench of this Court vide its order dated 17.02.2021 and a copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure R-3/1 along with the return filed by the respondent No. 3. He would further submit that since the issue involved in the present petition has already been adjudicated by the order dated 17.02.2021 and the same has not been 5 challenged in any higher forum, it attains finality and there is no need to reconsider the same issue in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has not disputed the order dated 17.02.2021, passed in WPC No. 2269 of 2019 deciding the same issue and the same has not been challenged in any higher forum, but he would submit that the facts of the present case of the petitioner is slight different than the facts of that case which has been decided on 17.02.2021. He would further submit that in WPC No. 2269 of 2019, the State had rejected the application for permission, it was related to Section 7 of the IGKV Act only, the occupied field by central legislation i.e. Section 22 of the UGC Act 1956, the Entry No. 25 of List 3 cannot be pressed into service, because the matter pertains to higher education under Entry 66 of List 1, the monopoly cannot be created by State act, which would violate the fundamental rights of the educational institutions, whereas in the present case, the State has refused to grant NOC for B.Sc (Agriculture). In the present case, the validity of both the Sections 6 and 7 of IGKV Act has been challenged, the occupied field in the present case is UGC Act as well as the ICAR norms and Entry 25 of List 3 governs the field with the regulatory framework under Entry 66 of List 1. The operation of Entry 14 of List 2 is only with respect of agriculture education and not the areas of administration, examination, affiliation which are subject covered under Entry 66 of List 1. Further, under Entry 14 of List 2, a bar cannot be created to run agriculture degree course complying with the central norms of ICAR and UGC. Further, State is not competent to legislate on the subject university which is exclusive domain of ICAR, UGC and 6 central laws/regulations. Therefore, the facts and consideration in the present case is different than the facts and consideration of the WPC No. 2269 of 2019. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material annexed with the petition as well as the order dated 17.02.2021 passed in WPC No. 2269 of 2019 (Annexure R-3/1). 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the document annexed with the petition, issue involved in the petition as well as the challenge in the petition by the petitioner and also from perusal of the order dated 17.02.2021 passed in WPC No. 2269 of 2019 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court, we do not find any ground to interfere in the present petition as the issue involved in the petition has already been adjudicated by the order dated 17.02.2021 in WPC No. 2269 of 2019 passed by coordinate bench of this Court and there is no challenge to that order in any higher forum. 7. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any good ground to take a different view from that of the order dated 17.02.2021. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved