ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) The Court : Upon hearing parties, order dated 8th February, 2018 was made. It would serve the present purpose to extract the following therefrom:- "Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appears for Rabindra Bharati University, and submits, the University Grants Commission (Regulations and Directives) prohibit grant of recognition to petitioner's institution as hit by the bar therein on distance education. Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate appears for UGC and submits, the territorial bar is restricted to the territory of the State in which the University is situated. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate, Additional Government Pleader appears for State and submits that this petition has been filed on a cause already decided. Grievance of petitioner, as the Court has been able to appreciate, is that he seeks recognition for his institution. This has been denied him in earlier granting provisional recognition and thereafter actually denying the institution's proper recognition. Records reveal statements that petitioner did not apply for renewal of provisional recognition and it appears that there is a presumption of non-fulfillment of conditions. This had been considered by the said judgment as would appear from the extract above. In view of the aforesaid, this Court directs the University to either grant recognition to the institution of petitioner with all its consequences or put in an affidavit giving reasons as to why it cannot do so. List the writ petition under the heading Rs. To be Mentioned' on 22nd February, 2018 as prayed for on behalf of the University for it to make known to Court its position."
(2.) The University has filed an affidavit relying on which Mr. Chakraborty makes his submissions. His first submission is that petitioner had put in requisite fees for getting recognition for his institution as directed by order dated 2nd September, 2008 and thereafter when he filed for contempt, the contempt application stood dismissed. So much so, petitioner had applied for recalling of the dismissal order, which application was also dismissed.
(3.) He relies on judgment dated 9th June, 1993 in Kamal Krishna Acharya and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors, reported in (1994)2 CLT 445 . He submits, a Division Bench of this Court had found that an institution going by the name of Rs. Kabitirtha' still stood affiliated with his client. He then relies on judgment dated 28th January, 1997, passed in petitioner's own case and reported in AIR 1999 Cal 155. He places paragraph 8 of the judgment to submit, petitioner has no right to run any institution by the name of Rs. Kabitirtha' at Subash Pally as had been held thereby. He hands up order dated 9th September, 2015, passed by me in petitioner's own case W.P. no.228 of 2008. Mr. Chakraborty emphasizes petitioner's case recorded in that order was that he was Founder Principal and Ex-officio Secretary of original Kabitirtha College at Subash Nagar/Kabita Nagar, Bongaon, North 24 Parganas and the College is affiliated to Rabindra Bharati University. Hence, according to Mr. Chakraborty, there can be no order in favour of petitioner for granting his institution affiliation when he himself has said that his institution is affiliated.;