The Non Government University Act, 2010
Section 7
From the impugned judgment and order, it appears that although the Rule issued by the High Court Division had two parts, the first part related to the im- pugned notice vide Memo No. বিসক/বেঃবিঃ/ জি-১৫/৪৩১(২)/০৩/৬৬৮৯ dated 25.10.2009 in which the petitioner was asked to shut down its two unap- proved outer campuses without any delay and to explain as to why it was continuing to admit students in the said campuses and it was also directed to stop admission of students in the unap- proved B.Sc. in Civil Engineering, at the time of hearing of the Rule, the learned Advocate of the petitioner did not press the first part of the Rule and accordingly, the High Court Division has not said any thing about the propri- ety of the impugned Memo. Therefore, we are not at all required to dwell upon the propriety of the impugned Memo. The High Court Division considering the annexures appended to the supple- mentary affidavit dated 23.02.2011 par- ticularly annexures-'Q' and 'R' series found that the inspection team of the University Grants Commission in- spected Chittagong and Rajshahi cam- puses of the petitioner; the petitioner filed the trust deed dated 19.11.2010, fixed deposit receipt (FDR) account for Chittagong and Rajshahi campuses, the lease deeds of the aforesaid campuses as per requirements of the Ain, 2010 and thus fulfilled the criteria for establishment of the independent campuses at Chittagong and Rajshahi, yet the re- spondents were not giving permission for establishment of the outer campuses at the said two places and such inaction on the part of the respondents was in- consistent with the provisions of the Ain, 2010. The learned Judges took fur- ther view that the petitioner was not being treated in accordance with law. The learned Judges observed that the re- spondents including the University Grants Commission should act having regard to the Ain, 2010 to save the stu- dents from uncertainty and despair. The learned Judges on consideration of the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 3 and sub-section (9) of section 6 of the Ain, 2010 came to the conclusion that the petitioner, having fulfilled the crite- ria as provided in the said two sections of the Ain, 2010, was entitled to have permission of the independent cam- puses at Rajshahi and Chittagong and accordingly disposed of the Rule with direction as already stated hereinbefore. UGC vs. University of Information Technology & Science (Md. Abdul Wah- hab Miah J) (Civil) 9 ADC 991
