Does a University Have the Right to De-affiliate a College Based Solely on a Civil Court Decree Amidst Pending Appeals and Section 47 CPC Proceedings?

The Calcutta High Court clarified that a civil court decree regarding college management remains operative unless stayed, and universities may act based on such decrees; however, orders granting procedural relief for students do not create rights or equities between rival management groups while judicial challenges to decrees are pending. This reasoning upholds established precedent and is binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal, with persuasive value elsewhere for education sector disputes involving institutional affiliation and management litigation.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Clarifies that a civil court decree—adjudicating management rights—remains effective and binding unless stayed, even if an appeal or Section 47 CPC proceeding is pending.
• Reaffirms that universities may lawfully act on such decrees in matters of affiliation.
• Recognises that interim judicial directions regarding student admissions/affiliation are procedural and do not create rights or equities amongst rival managing groups.
• Orders issued in student interest are strictly without prejudice to final determination of management disputes.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The High Court observed the continued existence and operation of the civil court decree determining management rights, noting no stay had been granted and pendency of appeal or Section 47 CPC application does not negate its effect.
• Student welfare was identified as paramount: the court noted that internal management disputes and associated litigation are not the responsibility or within the knowledge of ordinary students, and procedural decisions must be guided by their interest.
• The court maintained that in view of the operative decree, there was no need to adjudicate rival management claims in the writ; thus, university actions based on the decree remain legally valid.
• The court provided clear stepwise procedural directions to ensure smooth affiliation for the academic session without prejudice to the substantive rights of rival parties, thus preserving the effect of the eventual final adjudication.
• Co-ordinate bench orders from 2019 were cited to reinforce the court’s approach to similar management disputes and educational administration.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• Argued that the university’s cancellation of affiliation was improper because the current managing committee (not impleaded in the civil suit) has operated the college since 2012.
• Claimed that the civil suit decree does not bind the current management.
• Pointed out that both Section 47 CPC proceedings and an appeal against the decree are pending; argued that these actions suspend or undermine the operative force of the decree.
• Highlighted estoppel against the university for contesting the decree’s validity while simultaneously acting upon it.
• Requested that, in view of student interests, affiliation be granted in the name of the college without conferring rights on any contesting management group.

Respondent (University)

• Maintained that as long as the decree stands and is operative (i.e., not set aside or stayed), applications for affiliation should come from the decree-holder group.
• Asserted that prior affiliations to other groups were inadvertent errors and cannot be continued.
• Argued that the de-affiliation order is justified and sought dismissal of the writ petition.

Other Appearances

• Several individuals representing other claimants to management appeared but had no right of audience as not parties to the writ.

Factual Background

The dispute stemmed from a college management conflict, which led to a civil suit (Others Suit No. 61 of 2013) in which one society sought to establish its exclusive management rights over Dr. B.R. Ambedkar College (B.Ed. Section). The civil court decreed in favour of the plaintiff society on November 1, 2019, restraining rival groups and recognising the society’s management. The university continued periodic renewal of affiliation until, invoking the existence of the civil court decree, it cancelled the college’s affiliation for the B.Ed. course in September 2025. Both a Section 47 CPC application (by the university challenging the decree’s validity) and an appeal by other defendants were pending at the time of the writ. Students had registered for the new academic session, and admissions were in progress.

Statutory Analysis

The judgment examined Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which addresses questions relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree, emphasising that such proceedings do not affect the operative force of a decree unless specifically stayed. The court applied established legal principles regarding the effect and enforceability of civil court decrees in the absence of appellate interference. No constitutional provisions were interpreted, but the educational regulatory context (affiliation powers) was discussed.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered in this single-judge judgment.

Procedural Innovations

• The court issued a novel procedural direction: If the decree-holder applies for affiliation by a stipulated deadline, the university must grant affiliation and formalise college access; failing which, the university must itself grant affiliation in the college’s name, ensuring continuity for students without granting management rights to any party.
• The order clarified that student-centric procedural relief does not affect underlying substantive disputes.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on the effect of unstayed civil court decrees was affirmed, and procedural precedence regarding student rights in the context of institutional management disputes was reiterated.