Dr.Y.S.Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 6649 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                               Date of Decision : September 07, 2015

+                         W.P.(C) 3383/2015

       DR.Y.S.KUMAR                                       .....Petitioner
                Represented by:        Petitioner in person

                                       versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                            ..... Respondents
                Represented by:        Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate
                                       for R-1
                                       Mr.V.Sudeer, Advocate for R-2
                                       Mr.Anil Soni, Advocate with
                                       Mr.Naginder Benipal, Advocate for
                                       R-3
                                       Mr.Amit Sibbal, Sr.Advocate
                                       instructed by Mr.Devdhar Kamat,
                                       Mr.Gautam Chauhan and
                                       Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Advocates for
                                       R-4.
                                       Mr.Akhil Sibbal and Mr.Tanmya
                                       Mehta, Advocates for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. We had heard arguments on the issue whether the petitioner has a locus-standi to maintain the instant writ petition in which the petitioner proclaims to be espousing a public interest. On July 29, 2015 it was recorded that respondents No.4 and 5 desired to challenge the locus standi of the petitioner on account of he having a personal interest in the litigation. Said respondents were permitted to file an affidavit along with

such material on which they relied having a bearing on the right of the petitioner to maintain the present petition espousing a public cause. Necessary affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4 to which a response has been filed by the petitioner.

2. Prayers made in the writ petition are as under:-

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in public interest directing respondents 1,2 & 3 to make appropriate civil/criminal action against respondents 4 & 5 for selling fake degrees to unsuspecting students.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in public interest, directing respondents 1, 2 & 3 to order stoppage of all programmes run by the respondents 4 & 5, other than those that are specifically permitted by law.

(iii) Direct respondents 1, 2 & 3 and/or other appropriate body/organization of the Government of India, including the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate, to conduct a thorough, comprehensive enquiry/investigation, into the affairs of respondents 4 & 5."

3. The petitioner has stated in para 1 of the writ petition that he has no personal interest in the litigation and is not guided by a any self-gain and has no motive other than to espouse a public interest in the writ petition.

4. In para 3 of the writ petition the petitioner pleads that the fraudulent activities indulged by the respondents No.4 and 5 surfaced when in August/September, 2012, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence initiated proceedings against said respondents for evasion of

service tax and during the said investigation it surfaced that degrees which were not recognized by law were being conferred by respondents No.4 and 5 on students enrolled in 13 centres. It was pleaded that respondent No.4 is a State recognized private university and respondent No.5 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and had established 13 centres in the country under the name of 'Amity Global Business School', students enrolled wherein were being awarded degrees by respondent No.4.

5. As regards the petitioner it was pleaded that he was a practicing lawyer and had been a member of a visiting faculty in various business schools and had in the past also taught at the Noida Campus of respondent No.4. As per the petitioner respondents No.4 and 5 are violating guidelines framed by the University Grants Commission by opening centres overlooking that respondent No.4 university is recognized with its campus in Noida in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is pleaded that at the said 13 centres, by rendering services respondents No.4 and 5 have become liable to pay service tax in respect of which the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence has unearthed a fraud. It is pleaded that as per law a State recognized university has to restrict its area of operation in the respective State and cannot extend its activities beyond the geographical limits of its State.

6. Questioning the locus of the petitioner and his averments in the writ petition that he is not guided by self-gain and has no motive other than to espouse a public cause, respondent No.4 points out that the petitioner masquerades by changing his name by sometimes representing that he is Yogesh Kumar and that his real name is Yuvraj Shekhar

Kumar, and during arguments it was highlighted that the petitioner does not disclose his full name anywhere, as in the writ petition, he simply described himself as 'Dr.Y.S.Kumar'. It is pleaded that the petitioner was given employment by respondent No.4 as a Visiting Faculty Member but had to be removed on allegations of sexual harassment by a Programme Leader with the university against the petitioner and in respect of which complaints were lodged at P.S.Sector-49, Noida. It is pleaded by respondent No.4 that thereafter the petitioner started threatening the university officials and started filing frivolous RTI applications. He approached officers of the Society which had sponsored the respondent No.4 university and that on May 07, 2014 he filed a frivolous complaint against respondents No.4 and 5 at P.S.Defence Colony on the basis of certain unsubstantive observations made in a show cause notice issued by the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, which were challenged before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad which had stayed the same.

7. In the rejoinder filed, the petitioner has not disputed that a complaint of sexual harassment had been made against him and that his services with respondent No.4 were terminated midway, but claims that the complaint was motivated and as a matter of fact was antedated to justify petitioner's mid-term termination of service. The petitioner admits that he made complaint at P.S. Defence Colony against members of the sponsoring Society. Petitioner relies upon communication sent to him by respondent No.4 inviting him to participate at the functions of the university post his service being terminated to bring home the point that there is a contradiction in the conduct of respondent No.4, which one one

hand hints the petitioner as a person unworthy of association with an academic institute and on the other hand associating the petitioner with the academic activity at the institute. The petitioner admits proceedings initiated by respondents No.4 and 5 before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad but would urge that the same has no concern with the cause propounded by him in the writ petition.

8. We are not to decide the correctness or otherwise of the dispute which emerges from the pleadings with reference to the affidavit filed by respondents No.4 and 5 in terms of the order dated July 29, 2015 and petitioner's response thereto. It would be enough for us to highlight that the facts noted by us hereinabove bring out a serious interpersonal dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.4 and 5 and thus the petitioner would not be correct when he maintains the stand that he has no personal interest in the litigation and has no motive other than to espouse a public interest. The petitioner would therefore not be entitled to espouse the cause which he is intending to espouse in the instant writ petition.

9. We would have considered continuing with the writ petition by appointing an amicus to assist this Court after denuding the petitioner the right to continue to prosecute the petition in view of the cause which the petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition and prima-facie made good with reference to proceedings initiated by Director General of Central Excise Intelligence concerning avoidance of service tax, but refrain from doing so because, on going through the show cause notice issued by the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence alleging violation of service tax we find that it is based on respondent No.4 having campuses outside Noida and is premised that the law is that the respondent No.4

university cannot have a unit outside Noida and any off campus centre not recognized by the University Grants Commission would render proceeds of the said off campus centre liable to be taxed for purposes of service tax. Meaning thereby that the service of teaching at the off campus centres would attract service tax, which otherwise is not liable for imparting education at a campus of a recognized university; and the correctness thereof is under challenge before the Lucknow Bench of High Court Judicature at Allahabad. We find that the instant writ petition is alleging same facts and taking forward the same cause which forms the facts and the subject matter of the notice issued by the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence.

10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

11. The usual mantra. We have not expressed any opinion on the legality or otherwise of the working of respondents No.4 and 5. The facts noted hereinabove are limited to decide on the locus-standi of the petitioner or otherwise to continue the writ proceedings initiated by the petitioner.

12. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 07, 2015 skb