National Students Front And Anr. vs Jawaharlal Nehru University & ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 3128 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                  W.P.(C) No.5262 /2012
%                                                              22nd July, 2013

NATIONAL STUDENTS FRONT AND ANR.            ..... Petitioners
                 Through: Mr. B.S. Narwal, petitioner No.2 in
                          person.

                          versus

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ANR.         ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is filed by the two petitioners. First petitioner

is the National Students Front. Second petitioner is Sh. B.S. Narwal who

has appeared in person and argued the case on behalf of the petitioners.

2. The relief claimed in the writ petition, which on its own was

not decipherable, reads as under:-

"(A) May this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to quash an impugned decision of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Vice-Chancellor which is numbered as JNU/LC/ADMN- IV/2260 dated 29th May 2012 read with an Office Order Number 117 of 2006 dated 20th DECEMBER 2006 along with such other

consequential orders, so that, the JNUVC can be compelled to issue a Cancellation Notification in terms of an analogous stipulation extracted at Page Number 20 herein in this Civil Writ Petition along with the Notification Number 452 [S.O.565 (E)] dated 15th MARCH 2011 published by Authority in an Extraordinary Gazette of India Part II- Section 3-sub-section(ii)"

3. On further queries to the parties what comes out is that

petitioners claim that appointment of Dr. Muttayya M. Koganuramath as

Librarian by the respondent No.1/Jawaharlal Nehru University was illegal

and therefore this person should not only be allowed to submit his

resignation but also his appointment itself should be cancelled. Petitioner

No.2 also makes an oral prayer before this Court that respondent No.1

should be directed to issue a notification for cancellation of the appointment

of said Dr. Muttayya M. Koganuramath.

4. At the outset, I note that what is the composition of the

petitioner No.1, namely National Students Front, is not before this Court.

Who and what numbers are its members is not known. What are its objects

and purposes in terms of required provisions are also not found by means of

documents filed in this Court. Petitioner No.2 says that he is a Professor of

the respondent No.1-University, and how can a Professor be a member of a

Students' body is not intelligible. Also, how petitioner No.2 can represent

the petitioner No.1 is not found on the record of this Court though petitioner

No.2 claims that he has power of attorney from the petitioner No.1 in his

favour and which is filed in another case. As already stated unless all the

members of the petitioner No.1 have given an authorization to the petitioner

No.2, who appears in person, I do not think that petitioner No.2 can

represent the petitioner No.1. In view of the above facts, the main issue is

with respect to locus standi of both the petitioners to claim representation of

appointment of Dr. Muttayya M. Koganuramath, and it is held that none of

the petitioners have any locus standi because they are not administration or

management or controlling authority of the respondent No.1. Also,

petitioner No.2 is not in any manner an aspirant for the post of Librarian to

which Dr. Muttayya M. Koganuramath was appointed, and as conceded

before me by petitioner No.2.

5. I may note that a Division Bench of this Court in LPA

No.2044/2006 referred to the order which was passed by a the Division

Bench while dealing with the writ petition which was challenged in the

LPA, and para 2 of the order of the Division Bench reads as under:-

"2. Before we deal with merits of the issue, we would like to focus on the locus of the Petitioners in filing the present petition. The Petitioner No.1 is a student organization under Statute 33 of the JNU Act 1986 stated in paragraph 5 of the petition. The Petitioner No.2 appears to be an Advocate. He has not described his status and connection with the Petitioner No.1 in the petition, but on our asking

he has orally informed us that he is the President of Students Union. In paragraph 2, however, he has stated that he is a Case-Law- Authority. We are, however, unable to understand as to how an Advocate, who is enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, could become the President of Student Union. Whether the constitution of the students' body permits an Advocate to become a President of the Students Union is also not placed before us and, therefore, we cannot comment upon the same."

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx "The Petitioner No.2 appears to be aggrieved, but for reasons unknown to us. He has no connection at all with the functioning and management of the University, his vocation being that of an Advocate. So far as the question of recovery of the salary from Dr. Muttayya M. Koganuramath is concerned, he has rendered his service to the University as a librarian which was accepted and therefore, there is no possibility and question of recovery of any money from him."

6. It may be noted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners in

that case, and who are also admittedly the petitioners before me, was

dismissed with costs of `20,000/- recoverable as arrears of land revenue and

which costs I am told by the petitioner No.2 have been paid. The same

petitioners had also filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.9021/2007

challenging the appointment of one Mr. Avais Ahmed as Registrar of the

University and that writ petition was also dismissed inter alia with the

following observations:-

"In the present petition also, the Petitioner No.2, who appears to be an Advocate, has not described his status and connection with the Petitioner No.1 in the petition. In the opinion of this Court, the

Petitioners have no locus standi challenge the appointment of Registrar Respondent No.2 vide Impugned Order dated 7.10.2005. Even otherwise the Petitioner No.2, present in person, on being repeatedly asked, could not point out any infirmity in the appointment of Respondent No.3 Mr. Avais Ahmed as Registrar of Respondent No.2 University vide Impugned Order dated 7.10.2005. Upon hearing the Petitioner and on going through the contents of the petition, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner, being an Advocate, is exploiting the legal system for reasons best known to him". He has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of Registrar made by Respondent No.2 University made by Respondent No.2 University vide Impugned Order dated 7.10.2005. The Writ Petition is a misuse of the legal process and has no merit."

7. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No.9021/2007 was also

dismissed with costs of `25,000/-. As per the statement made by petitioner

No.2 even these costs have been paid. Petitioners have therefore paid,

according to them, a sum of `45,000/- as costs to respondent No.1-

University. Probably the coffers of the petitioners are large, and once again

this writ petition is filed without any locus standi whatsoever. I have

already reproduced the observations of the Division Bench while dismissing

the writ petition bearing No.1350/2008 which was challenged in LPA

No.2044/2006. Both these orders have become final. Of course, the order

passed in W.P.(C) No.9021/2007 is said to be pending before the Supreme

Court as Supreme Court has directed leave for hearing, however that at best

would mean that SLP which has been filed would be considered

in due course.

8. I am of the opinion that repeated litigations initiated without

locus standi quite clearly is unacceptable. Before proceeding to write the

judgment, I asked the petitioner No.2, who appears in person, as to whether

he invites a judgment from this Court, and to which petitioner No.2

answered in affirmative that the judgment be passed. I am of the opinion that

whether at all a simple notification (and not a gazette notification) should be

issued or not by the respondent No.1-University qua the cancellation of

appointment of Dr. Muttayya M. Koganuramath is an aspect which will be

dealt with and considered by the appropriate authorities in the respondent

No.1-University. Merely because, petitioners may either be students in the

respondent No.1 or even a Professor in the respondent No.1 will not mean

that they have taken over the administration of the respondent No.1.

Administration of respondent No.1, surely is in safe hands and I need not

entertain petition of busy bodies who do not seem to understand their lack of

locus standi in spite of earlier petitions being dismissed with costs.

Petitioners can have locus standi only if their legal rights are infringed, and

since no legal rights of the petitioners are infringed, petitioners have no

locus standi to file this writ petition.

9. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed with costs

of `1 lakh. Costs can be recovered by the respondent No.1-University in

accordance with law from the petitioners.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J JULY 22, 2013 Ne