College Penalty Clause Struck Down: Rajasthan High Court

Commissioner Cannot Levy Penalties Through College Policy Without Statutory Power: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Penalty Clause

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court held that the Commissioner, College Education had no power to put penalty clauses in the Private Colleges Policy under which private colleges paid to regularise deficiencies in temporary recognition and obtain an NOC. The Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 provides penalties only in Sections 33 and 34, and no notification under Section 42 delegated any such power (paras 23, 25, 33). Penalties paid must be refunded (para 36).

Key holdings

Sections 33 and 34 are the only penalty provisions of the 1989 Act; the 1993 Rules add none (paras 23, 30).

Rule 7(3) of the 1993 Rules allows withdrawal of recognition, not a penalty to regularise or extend it (para 24).

Without a Section 42 notification, the Commissioner had no delegated power to impose penalties (paras 25, 33, 35).

Judicial review of policy lies where the policy is issued without authority of law (para 26).

Policies and directions may supplement the Act and Rules but cannot supplant them (para 31).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Forty-one writ petitions by private colleges running on temporary recognition were heard together after a Division Bench order of 17.11.2021 (paras 1-2, 22). They fell into three sets; the lead case of the first, Sita Devi Educational Society, challenged the penalty provisions of the Commissioner's policy (paras 3-4). Under the Private Colleges Policy for various years, penalties were demanded for deficiencies and NOCs withheld when they were not paid, so affiliation was withheld and students' admit cards and results were held back (paras 13, 22). The parties agreed to decide the Commissioner's competence first (para 8). The State relied on Rule 7 of the 1993 Rules (paras 15-17).

Court's Findings

The 1989 Act provides penalties only in Sections 33 and 34, for specified contraventions; the 1993 Rules add none, and the State could point to no notification delegating such a power to the Commissioner (para 23). Rule 7(3) permits withdrawal of recognition, not a penalty to regularise or extend it (para 24). St. Johns Teachers Training Institute did not help the State: delegated power must be permitted by the Act, and no Section 42 notification was issued, published or approved; the Commissioner acted suo motu without authority of law (para 25). Courts are slow to interfere with policy, but judicial review lies where a policy is issued without authority or overrides the Act and Rules, so the Himachal Pradesh case was distinguished (paras 26-27). No penal clause existed when the colleges were set up; penalties reached Rs. 6 lakh in 2015 and 2016 and were later cut to Rs. 50,000 a year without reasons (para 30). Following J.K. Industries, M.R.F. and Sudesh Taneja, policies may supplement but not supplant the Act (paras 31-32). The policy rested on neither Section 42 nor Section 43, and under Canon India the Commissioner lacked authority to impose penalties (paras 33, 35).

Legal Principle

An executive authority cannot, by a policy or instructions, impose pecuniary penalties that the parent Act and Rules neither provide nor delegate. Where the Act confines penalties to specified contraventions and delegation needs a gazetted notification, a policy charging penalties to regularise deficiencies in recognition is ultra vires and illegal (paras 23, 31, 33).

Precedents Relied Upon

The Central Bank of India v. Their Workmen AIR 1960 SC 12
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 11, 28
Under the ambit of a policy, the scope and provisions of the Act and Rules cannot be bypassed; the executive cannot enlarge the statute.
M.R.F. Ltd. & Ors. v. Manohar Parrikar & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 374
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 11, 31
Directions or policies under delegated or subordinate power may only supplement the Act, not supplant or violate it; otherwise they are ultra vires.
J.K. Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 673
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 31
Delegated or ancillary power to fill in details permits policies only to the extent the Act allows; they cannot supplant or violate the parent Act.

View all precedents (9)

Canon India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs AIR 2021 SC 1699
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 11, 35
When a statute directs that a thing be done in a certain way, it must be done in that way alone; applied to hold that the Commissioner had no authority to impose penalties.
Sudesh Taneja v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 (Rajasthan High Court, decided 27.01.2022)
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 32
Division Bench: subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the Act and must stay within the four corners of the parent statute.
St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education & Ors. (2003) 3 SCC 321
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 16, 25
Cited by the State on excessive delegation and the presumption of validity; held not applicable because the delegated power must be permitted by the Act and no Section 42 notification existed.
State of H.P. & Ors. v. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh (2011) 6 SCC 597
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 17, 27
Cited by the State for restraint in reviewing policy; distinguished because the policy was issued without authority of law.
General Officer Commanding-in-Chief & Ors. v. Subhash Chandra Yadav & Ors. (1988) 2 SCC 351
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Cited by the petitioners; not discussed further in the judgment.
Shanti Sports Club & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 705
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11
Cited by the petitioners; not discussed further in the judgment.