Introduction:

In the case Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v. State of Kerala and Ors [WP(C) 24503/2024; 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 458], the Kerala High Court delivered a significant judgment concerning the limits of statutory power of review by quasi-judicial authorities. Justice D K Singh presided over the matter, which revolved around a controversial order passed by Kannur University, whereby it reviewed and reversed its own earlier decision related to the ownership and educational agency of Sharaf Arts and Science College, Padne. The petition was filed by the Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee, which challenged the University’s July 2024 order as being without jurisdiction. The court, relying on authoritative Supreme Court and High Court precedents, ruled in favour of the Committee, setting aside the University’s impugned order as illegal and void for want of statutory backing for the power of review.

Arguments of the Petitioner and Respondents & Court’s Judgment:

The dispute centres on the ownership and management rights of Sharaf Arts and Science College, Padne, a college affiliated with Kannur University. The petitioner, Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee, represented by senior advocate S. Sreekumar and counsel P.K. Ravisankar, submitted that it was a registered society under the Societies Registration Act since 2006 and was officially recognised by the University in October 2015 as the legitimate educational agency. This recognition had followed inquiries and legal assessments and was subsequently the subject of multiple litigations, culminating in court decisions favouring the petitioner. Despite this, the University, acting upon a fresh legal opinion and syndicate resolution, reversed its 2015 decision in July 2024 and vested the educational agency with the Khidmath Organisation of Padne. This abrupt change prompted the petitioner to challenge the University’s move on the grounds that the University lacked the statutory authority to review its previous decision. The petitioner strongly contended that the power of review is not inherent to statutory bodies or quasi-judicial authorities and must be explicitly conferred by the statute that creates them. They further argued that no such power exists under the Kannur University Act or the Statutes framed thereunder. In contrast, the respondents, represented by V. Venugopal (GP), senior counsels Kurian George Kannanthanam and P. Ravindran, along with other advocates, justified the University’s actions citing administrative decisions and internal resolutions, but failed to cite any statutory provision that authorised the University to review its own prior decision. The High Court, siding with the petitioner, emphasized that it is a well-established principle that statutory authorities do not possess inherent powers of review and such power must stem from a statute. Justice D K Singh noted that the University had effectively acted as an appellate authority over earlier judicial determinations, without having the requisite statutory power. He stated that neither the learned counsel for the University nor that for the sixth respondent, Khidmath Organisation, were able to point out any provision under the Kannur University Act or its Statutes that conferred such power to review. Referring to precedents such as Dr. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (1980) and Shivraji v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad (1997), the Court reiterated that quasi-judicial bodies and administrative authorities must function within the four corners of the law and cannot assume review powers on their own. The Court also highlighted that the Chancellor of the University and earlier writ courts had consistently affirmed the recognition of the petitioner as the rightful educational agency unless a civil court ruled otherwise. In this context, the Court found it alarming that the University proceeded to act as if reviewing a judicial decision, absent any new facts or legal change. The judgment observed that permitting such self-review by authorities would lead to instability in administrative decisions, legal uncertainty, and endless rounds of litigation. It further emphasized that allowing bodies to overturn their own decisions without a statutory mandate would distort the balance between executive actions and judicial review, thereby undermining legal certainty. The Court conclusively held that the University’s action of passing the July 2024 order—identified as Ext.P15 in the proceedings—was ultra vires, lacking jurisdiction, and in contravention of both statutory and judicial discipline. Accordingly, the Kerala High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition filed by the Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee. The ruling is an authoritative affirmation of the principle that review powers must be explicitly granted and cannot be inferred or assumed by statutory or quasi-judicial authorities.