Manabendra Ray vs The State Of West Bengal State & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1302 Cal

24   17.03.2022
      PA(SS)
                               WPA(P) 10 of 2021
                                     With
                                CAN 1 of 2021
                                     With
                                CAN 2 of 2021
                                     With
                                CAN 3 of 2021
                                     With
                                CAN 4 of 2021
                                     With
                                CAN 5 of 2021

                             Manabendra Ray
                                    Vs.
                   The State of West Bengal State & Ors.


                   Mr.   Soumya Majumder,
                   Mr.   Rajdeep Majumder,
                   Mr.   Srijib Chakraborty,
                   Mr.   Moyukh Mukherjee, Advocates
                                          ..for the petitioner

                   Mr.   S.N. Mookherjee, Ld. AG
                   Mr.   Anirban Ray, Ld. GP
                   Mr.   Rajat Dutta,
                   Mr.   Sandip Dasgupta,
                   Mr.   Saaqib Siddique,
                   Mr.   Aviroop Mitra, Advocates
                                          ...for the State

                   Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri,
                   Mr. N. Roy, Advocates
                                  ... for the University

                   Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate
                                      ... for the respondent No.4

Mr. Sanjay Basu, Mr. Piyush Agarwal, Ms. Ranjabati Ray, Advocates ... for the intervenor in CAN 2 of 2021

Ms. Ashima Roy Chowdhury, Advocate ... for the Union of India

We have heard the learned Counsel for the

parties on the issue of maintainability of this PIL.

Submission of the learned Advocate General is

that the subject matter of present case is not covered by

Rule 56 of the Rules Relating to Application under Article

226, hence the petition cannot be maintained. In

support of his submission questioning maintainability he

has placed reliance upon paragraph 32, 43, 74, 75, 96,

103, 104 and 181 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the matter of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant

Singh Chaufal and Others, (2010) 3 SCC 402. He has

also questioned the locus of the petitioner.

Submission of the learned Counsel for the

petitioner is that an issue of larger public interest is

involved in the matter and that the provisions of West

Bengal Universities and Colleges (Administration and

Regulation) Act, 2017 and West Bengal State Universities

(Terms and Conditions of Service of the Vice Chancellor

and the Manner and the Procedure of Official

Communication) Rules, 2019 completely take away the

autonomy of the university in the State thereby affecting

the higher education system. He submits that the

petitioner has locus to file this petition and in support of

his petition he has placed reliance upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lok Prahari vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 389,

Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 6 SCC 1, and

State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and

Others, (2010) 3 SCC 402.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties

and on the perusal of the provisions of the Act and the

Rules under challenge, we are prima-facie satisfied that

the challenge raised by the petitioner is not frivolous. A

larger issue of public interest has been raised in the

petition in relation to the constitutional validity of the

provisions of the Act and the Rules affecting the

autonomy of the universities in the state and thereby

having a deeper effect on the higher education system in

the State.

Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter

this Court by order dated 22.01.2021 had admitted the

the petition leaving the issue of maintainability open

thereafter pleadings have been completed and now the

matter is at the final stage. Various orders passed in the

meanwhile in the petition indicate that for all practical

purposes the petition has been maintained.

In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the matter of Lok Prahari (supra), a PIL

challenging the constitutional validity of an Act or Rules

can be maintained in an appropriate case. In the matter

of Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary (supra) a

PIL challenging the vires the provisions of U.P. Ministers

(Salaries, Allowances, and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,

1981 was held to be maintainable at the instance of the

registered society holding that the issue was of pubic

character.

Counsel for both the parties have placed reliance

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matter of Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra). On the

minute examination of these judgments we notice that

public interest litigation is not in the nature of adversary

litigation but it is a challenge and opportunity to the

Government and its officers to make basic human rights

meaningful and that a public interest petition relating to

probity, transparency and integrity in Government can

be maintained.

The present petition is at the instance of an

associate professor raising an issue of autonomy of the

university which has direct effect on the quality of

education, hence in the facts of the present case and in

view of the above judgments, it would not be in the larger

public interest to dismiss this PIL as not maintainable.

So far as the Rule 56 of the Rules Relating to Application

under Article 226 is concerned, the said Rule is inclusive

in nature and not exhaustive. Hence we hold that the

present writ petition to be maintainable.

List on 18.04.2022.

(Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.)

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)