Ruchika Lalit & Ors. vs All India Council For Technical ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 2437 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 2917/2015
%                                                    23rd March, 2015

RUCHIKA LALIT & ORS.                                       ..... Petitioners

                          Through:       Mr. Sanjoy Ghose and Mr. Rishabh
                                         Jetley, Advs.

                                versus

ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION & ORS.
                                        ..... Respondents

                          Through:       Mr. Anil Soni, Mr. T.Singhdev and
                                         Mr. Manan Khera, Adv. for R-1.

                                         Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi and Mr. Manish
                                         Sharma, Adv. for R-2.

                                         Mr. Sradhananda Mohapatra and Mr.
                                         Vipin Singh, Adv. for GGSIPU.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?         Yes


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. There are a total of 25 petitioners in this writ petition filed

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The main relief which is

argued for and prayed before this Court is the claim for service dues of the

petitioners against the respondent no.5/College and which is run by the

respondent no.3/Society.

2. I have repeatedly put to the counsels for the petitioners that in

one petition there cannot be innumerable number of petitioners whose facts

constituting causes of action for grant of specific monetary emoluments are

different and there is no common question of fact between one petitioner and

all the other petitioners then how can one omnibus petition be filed. Putting

it differently, dues of each individual petitioner arise from separate facts

particular to each petitioner because of the services, its tenure, its nature etc

etc which are performed by each of the petitioners with the respondent

no.5/College naturally once facts are different, hence separate monetary

emoluments under different heads will have to be claimed qua each specific

petitioner and therefore there cannot be joinder of causes of action of one

petitioner with the other petitioners. Merely because all petitioners worked

in one college cannot mean on such basis because the college is the

respondent, one petition can be filed. The present petition is therefore really

25 petitions of 25 petitioners joining separate facts constituting causes of

action qua each petitioner as regards the different amounts which will be

payable to each petitioner.

3(i) Not only that, I find that the writ petition is totally bereft of

specific facts/particulars qua each of the 25 petitioners as to under which

head qua each different petitioner service benefits under different heads arise

and that which head of claim has to give which amount of monetary

emoluments, how the monetary emoluments claimed arise in favour of each

of the petitioner by pleading of the facts of the causes of action qua each

petitioner etc etc. Counsel for respondents rightly argues that it is extremely

difficult to prepare a counter-affidavit in such a case and in fact a respondent

on account of lack of pleadings and joinder of facts qua 25 petitioners can

even be caused grave prejudice in defending such a petition.

(ii) Also, the writ petition only makes general averments of claims

of dues of petitioners, and hence this Court will be called upto to pass

general orders for payments of dues which would not be specific but would

be vague in nature and resultantly when the issue will arise of enforcement

of the orders, the vague order would be such which would not be capable of

being enforced either by filing a contempt petition or by filing appropriate

independent proceedings.

4. The present writ petition therefore quite clearly, is barred by

mis-joinder of causes of action so far as the claim of monetary reliefs

claimed for each of the individual petitioner is concerned and it is also

barred because there is complete lack of requisite pleadings as to different

heads of monetary emoluments qua each petitioner and how the facts exist

qua each petitioner which are specified for the petitioners to get the

monetary reliefs. Putting it in sum and substance each of the petitioner has

to file a separate petition and individual judicial proceedings to claim the

reliefs with respect to monetary emoluments claimed by him/her as per

different facts of each of such individuals as to their salaries, their nature of

services, their length of service etc etc.

5(i) That takes us to the second prayer of the petitioners and which

is that with respect to the dues of the petitioners, which are to be paid by the

respondent no.5/College, respondent nos.2 & 4 being respectively the

Government of NCT of Delhi and the University with which respondent

no.5 is affiliated, be appointed in effect as receivers for ensuring payments

of dues of the petitioners.

(ii) Appointments of respondent nos. 2 and 4 effectively as

receivers is to take over complete charge of the respondent no.5/College,

however limited for the purpose that petitioners' dues have to be cleared.

6. An order for appointment of receivers can be passed on specific

instances having been averred and established by the writ petition that there

is deliberate and malafide frittering away of monies by the respondents no.3

and 5 and as a result whereof the monetary dues of the petitioners would be

put in jeopardy, however, not even a single instance of frittering away of

monies by the respondent nos. 3 and 5 have been given in the petition and

therefore on the basis of general averments, drastic relief of appointing

respondent nos. 2 and 4 as receivers of respondent nos. 3 and 5 hence cannot

be granted by the Court.

7. I may state that during and after the hearing, I put it to counsel

for the petitioners that separate writ petitions or any other independent

judicial proceedings must be filed by different petitioners, and that for

appointment of a receiver, since specific instances should be given to show

frittering away of monies, and which have not been given and which can be

done by filing a fresh petition incorporating the requisite averments, but, the

counsel for the petitioners insisted that this Court must hear the petition and

decide the petition. I have therefore no option but to dismiss the petition so

far as the relief claimed of monetary emoluments of each petitioners

individually is concerned not only on account of lack of requisite pleadings

but also because of mis-joinder of causes of action. And, so far as the relief

of appointment of respondent nos.2 and 4 as receivers is concerned, since no

specific instances of siphoning of the monies or secreting the monies is

pleaded showing abuse of the authority by the respondent nos. 3 and 5, the

drastic relief in the nature of appointment of a receiver cannot be granted.

8. Counsel for the petitioners sought to argue that this Court has

extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to do

justice, however, I do not feel that the provision of Article 226 of the

Constitution of India has to be invoked and applied dehors the applicable

laws. No doubt, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not apply to

writ petitions however, that does not mean that facts and causes of action

qua each separate individual can be jumbled up together with cases of

dozens of other persons, in one petition against basic principles of law of

pleadings and filing of cases, though, common questions of fact do not arise

qua each petitioners. This Court therefore cannot be called upon to decide

various cases within one writ petition. Under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India laws are enforced and it cannot be the position that under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, laws can be breached and reliefs can be

sought and granted in violation of the basic principles of law, more so when

on account of misjoinder of causes of action there can be caused prejudice to

the respondent because of jumbling of facts of various persons in one

petition. I cannot agree with the counsel for the petitioners that in service

law writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India basic

principles of law of misjoinder of causes of action and existence of vague

pleadings can be overlooked.

9. Another relief which is claimed by the 25 petitioners is that as

public law damages a re-location allowance be paid to the petitioners

because petitioners' services are being re-located from respondent no.

5/College which is situated at G.T.Karnal Road, Delhi to Mahavir Swami

Institute of Technology (MSIT) at Sonepat. Though it would not be relevant

for the discussion hereinafter it is to be noted that G.T.Karnal Road where

the respondent no.5/College is situated is in the North of Delhi and even

Sonepat would be a few kilometres to the North of Delhi and possibly

keeping this in view the respondent nos. 3 and 4 authorities have re-located

the petitioners not in some other affiliated college in the South, West or East

of Delhi but with MSIT, Sonepat. This relief clause (c) claimed by the

petitioner reads as under:-

"c. Issue a writ, order or direction to the respondent No.4 to formulate a scheme with the assistance of the Respondent No.2 to provide for some sort of re-location allowance to the petitioners for their complete and effective rehabilitation of the petitioners in MITS in terms of the order of the Respondent No.4 dated 19.11.2014 payable as public law damages to the Petitioners who had relied on the strength of the affiliation granted by this Respondent to the college and accepted employment with the college."

10. In essence the cause of action which is pleaded with respect to

grant of this relief is that petitioners claim that they joined the respondent

no.5/College as it was found to be affiliated to respondent no.4-University,

and which University is approved by the respondent no.1 being the All India

Council for Technical Education (AICTE), however, these authorities have

breached their fundamental duties in continuing the respondent no.5/College

although the facilities were not existing, and which ultimately led to the

closure of the respondent no.5/College and hence for re-location, petitioners

have to be compensated. Reliance is also placed by the petitioners upon the

Statute 24 issued under Section 26 of the Guru Gobind Indraprastha

University Act, 1998 with its Clauses 3(ii)(e) which states that no college

will be admitted to the privileges of the University unless the college has the

necessary infrastructure etc as specified in 3(ii)(e), and which reads as

under:-

"(3). xxxxxxx ...........

(ii) No college or institution shall be admitted to the privileges of the University unless-

..........

.........

.........

..........

(e) it actually has suitable and adequate physical facilities in terms of space, accommodation, sanitation, laboratories and workshops, equipment, library and reading room, furniture and other infrastructural facilities as specified by the University from time to time for maintenance of requisite standards in the Ordinance;"

11. Similar provision is relied upon so far as respondent

no.1/AICTE is concerned.

12. The relief of re-location allowance can be claimed either on the

basis of a contract or a statute, but, that is not the pleaded cause of action.

The relief thus claimed is based on law of torts i.e alleged tortious wrongs

committed by the public authorities being the AICTE and the University

which granted affiliation to the respondent no.5/ College. In my opinion, the

writ petition in such circumstances is not an appropriate remedy because if

public law damages are claimed, such damages will have to be calculated

and that too after proving facts constituting the cause of action under law of

torts i.e not only damages will have to be calculated, there will exist disputed

questions of fact which require trial with respect to the infrastructure

provided or not provided by the respondent no.5/College, what were the

aspects which were lacking, and whether they were deliberate, what is the

role of the petitioners qua continuing their services with respect to such an

institution, whether petitioners are estopped in making their claims as they

have taken benefit of services with the respondent nos. 3 and 5 being the

Society and the College, and various other disputed questions of fact and

law. No doubt, this Court while hearing a writ petition, qua an appropriate

case and depending on facts of a particular case, may also decide disputed

questions of fact after trial, however, considering the facts of the present

case, I do not think it fit that this Court should decide disputed questions of

facts and law under the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. Therefore, the remedy of public law damages cannot be appropriately

granted by this Court in exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. Petitioners do not seek enforcement of a contract

or a statutory provision for claiming re-location allowance, and petitioners'

case therefore will really be under the law of torts viz tortious actions

alleged of respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 for tortious actions and recovery of

monies, and hence a suit after paying the court fees will be an appropriate

remedy and not a writ petition.

13. It also bears note that the petitioners need not re-locate themselves by

taking employment in the college at Sonepat and it is only their option to do

so. In fact, petitioners are benefitted by re-location, but for which their

services/employment would have come to an end. Petitioners since are

getting this profit cannot become over-ambitious and claim damages from a

university which by re-locating them is protecting their services.

14. No other issue is pressed or arises.

15. Dismissed.

MARCH 23, 2015                                       VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib