Committee Report Doesn’t Become Invalid Merely Because It Lacks Signature Of One Member: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a committee report does not become invalid merely because it lacks the signature of one member, so long as it reflects the considered opinion of the majority and the conclusions are based on objective material, comprehensive inquiry, and reasoned analysis.

The Court held thus in two Writ Petitions seeking the establishment of a proposed Government Degree College at the respective native places of Petitioners, namely Aishmuqam and Siligam.

A Single Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “It is further observed that the report has been duly signed by the majority of the committee members, namely the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, and the Director Colleges, Jammu & Kashmir. The absence of the signature of the Director School Education, Kashmir, does not, render the report invalid or unreliable. A committee report does not become invalid merely because it lacks the signature of one member, so long as it reflects the considered opinion of the majority and the conclusions are based on objective material, comprehensive inquiry, and reasoned analysis.”

The Bench said that the Government order in which both the locations are mentioned cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive of the Government’s intent, particularly when the feasibility report prepared thereafter reflects a different assessment.

Advocate G. A. Lone appeared for the Petitioners, while Senior Advocate A. H. Naik and Government Advocate Ilyas Laway appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The residents of Aishmuqam filed a Writ Petition in 2018 challenging Government Order, whereby sanction was accorded for the establishment of a Government Degree College at Siligam. Subsequently, in 2020, the residents of Siligam instituted another Writ Petition wherein, the Petitioners called in question the Communication issued by the Principal, Government Degree College, Uttersoo, requesting the Chief Education Officer, Anantnag, to provide accommodation for establishing a Government Degree College at Aishmuqam. This communication forms the foundation of the consequential directive issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, vide Communication, whereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pahalgam, was mandated to identify suitable accommodation at Aishmuqam for the establishment of the said College. Roots of instant controversy lie in the year 2012, when the then Government initiated a process for the establishment of a Government Degree College at Aishmuqam. For this purpose, a committee was constituted pursuant to Government Order, tasked with examining the feasibility of establishing a new Degree College within the identified geographical areas.

The said committee was headed by the Chairman, Director Colleges, Higher Education Department, and comprised ten (10) Principals of various Government Degree Colleges as its members. Upon completion of its mandate and after due consideration of relevant parameters, the committee submitted its report recommending the establishment of a Degree College in the Pahalgam area, and proposed Aishmuqam as the location for the said institution. After passage of much time, a representation was filed by the residents of different villages including that of the residents of Village Siligam, Adhard, Dangerpora, Fohar, Tantraypora, Batpora, Akad Palpora, Rakhchandipora, Salia Panzhalpora and Seer Hamdan and other nearby villagers for establishment of a degree college at Village Siligam. The representation was considered and the competent authority sanctioned Degree College, Siligam, vide Government Order. Hence, the case was before the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “This Court is convinced that a determination limited merely to maintainability would neither serve justice nor uphold the purpose underlying the proposed Government Degree College. Rather than allowing procedural technicalities to further perpetuate stagnation, this Court finds it appropriate to examine the matter on merits so that the long-pending issue is conclusively resolved and the intended public benefit is realized without further delay.”

The Court refrained itself from going into the locus standi and maintainability of the Petition, which was already admitted and ripe for disposal, keeping in view the public interest involved and the loss suffered by the student community.

“In this backdrop, therefore, instead of delving into technicalities, the Court deems it appropriate to decide the entire gambit of the controversy on merits, so that the issues pending in both petitions are closed and the controversy is finally set at rest. Moreover, this Court is making sincere endeavor to clinch this controversy by deciding rights of all the contesting parties”, it added.

The Court reiterated that the Government, being entrusted with governance and planning, is the appropriate authority to decide where an educational institution should be established. Such a decision is taken after considering several factors, including availability of land, population coverage, access-routes, feasibility of construction and larger public convenience.

“Courts do not step into this arena unless the decision is shown to be unconstitutional, arbitrary, or in violation of a statutory mandate. … As a general rule, courts do not interfere in policy decisions, which fall within the exclusive domain of the executive”, it said.

The Court remarked that policy decisions are matters of choice, planning, and technical judgment, and usually fall within the exclusive domain of the Government and such decisions require evaluation of competing interests, allocation of limited resources, and consideration of social, economic, and administrative factors beyond the technical competence of the Court.

“Consequently, courts are generally reluctant to interfere in policy matters. However, judicial review is not entirely excluded and is permissible where a policy decision is shown to be illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, procedurally irregular, in violation of statutory provisions, or inconsistent with constitutional mandates. Courts may intervene where a decision is manifestly unreasonable, discriminatory, shocks the conscience, or violates principles of natural justice, causing undue prejudice to the public”, it added.

The Court emphasised that judicial review does not entitle the Court to substitute its own opinion for that of the executive; the Court’s role is limited to ensuring that the executive has acted within the bounds of law, applied its mind rationally, considered relevant factors, and complied with established policies and procedures.

“In the present case, while the decision regarding the location of the College involves technical and administrative considerations, it remains open to judicial review to ensure that it was not arbitrary, irrational, illegal, or contrary to the law and expert recommendations”, it observed.

The Court further reiterated that the scope of judicial review of governmental policy is inherently limited and the merits or soundness of the policy itself are not open to judicial scrutiny.

“… Courts neither function as appellate authorities empowered to examine the correctness, suitability, or appropriateness of a policy, nor do they act as advisors to the executive in matters which fall within the exclusive domain of policy formulation”, it also said.

The Court clarified that judicial intervention in policy matter is permissible on established grounds such as illegality, arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fide exercise of power, or procedural impropriety and the Supreme Court has reiterated these principles in a plethora of decisions.

“… the Apex Court in plethora of judgments have recognized that judicial intervention in policy matters is permissible on well-established grounds such as illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Accordingly, a policy decision of the Government is amenable to judicial scrutiny to the extent that it contravenes statutory or constitutional mandates, or where it suffers from manifest unreasonableness”, it added.

The held that the action of the Government in the instant cases suffer from unreasonableness and lack of rationality and the Government Order in which both the locations are mentioned cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive of the Government’s intent, particularly when the feasibility report prepared thereafter reflects a different assessment.

“The issuance of a Government order specifying both Siligam and Aishmuqam, is failure of administrative clarity and has undoubtedly created a degree of ambiguity. The mention of both locations appears to be no more than a provisional acknowledgment of the two possible sites under consideration, rather than a final determination by the Government. The mere mention of both locations in the Government order, cannot be treated as a final decision of the Government”, it remarked.

The Court was of the view that the Government has acted unreasonably and two duly constituted committees had independently and consistently recommended Aishmuqam as the appropriate and feasible location for the establishment of the college.

“Applying the settled principles of judicial review, the Court finds that the Government’s decisions, both Order No. 300-HE of 2018 sanctioning the establishment of the college at Siligam and Order No. 48-HE of 2019 which ambiguously reflected the location as “Pahalgam Siligam/Aishmuqam,” are vitiated by manifest irrationality and arbitrariness. The consistent expert recommendations in favour of Aishmuqam were disregarded without any cogent or legally sustainable reasoning, thereby rendering the impugned actions unsustainable in law”, it held.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court held that the impugned decision of the Government vide Government Order is contrary to the material on the record and not supported by cogent reasons, cannot be sustained in law.

“It has resulted in prolonged uncertainty, stalled the establishment of a much-needed educational institution, and adversely affected the student population for more than a decade. Therefore, this Court holds that the Government’s decision sanctioning the college at Siligam is irrational, arbitrary, and unsustainable”, it added.

The Court observed that the report is exhaustive, reasoned, and based on objective criteria assessed through field inspections and documentary material and the committee has undertaken a scientific, comparative, and data-driven analysis of all relevant parameters.

“The impugned communications are merely consequential and an off shoot of the findings and recommendations contained in the Committee Report which has not been challenged by petitioners in WP(C) 309/2020. When the foundation (i.e., the Committee Report) remains intact and unassailed, the superstructure built upon it (i.e., the impugned communications) cannot be demolished”, it remarked.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the committee report is both credible and legally sustainable, and discerns no basis either to cast doubt upon its findings or to decline reliance thereon and that the report is comprehensive, reasoned, and founded upon a systematic comparative assessment of both proposed locations; the fact that it bears the endorsement of the majority of the duly constituted committee further fortifies its legal validity.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and directed the Government to establish the Government Degree College at Aishmuqam in accordance with the consistent recommendations of both the expert committees and the stand taken by the Government in both the Petitions that the college is required to be established at Aishmuqam.

Cause Title- Ghulam Rasool Bhat & Ors. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (Case Number: WP(C) 309/2020 C/W)

Click here to read/download the Judgment