Jharkhand High Court
Manish Patwari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (PIL) No. 3391 of 2024
---------
Manish Patwari, aged about 45 years, son of Mahendra
Patwari, resident of Flat No. 303/A, Mangalam Apartment,
Near Sukhdeonagar Thana, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District
Ranchi, PIN-834001.
Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher & Technical Education, Government
ofJharkhand, having its office at MDI Building, Near Project
Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi,
PIN 834004, (Jharkhand).
2. Director, Higher and Technical Education, having its office
at MDI Building, Near Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, PIN 834004 (Jharkhand).
3. Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, through its
Secretary, having its office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan,
Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, PIN-834010
(Jharkhand).
4. Ranchi University, through its Vice Chancellor, having its
office at Shahid Chowk, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali,
District Ranchi, PIN-834001 (Jharkhand).
5. The Registrar, Ranchi University, having its office at
Shahid Chowk, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District
Ranchi, PIN-834001 (Jharkhand).
Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv
Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Adv
---------
CAV on 20/09/2024 Pronounced on 03/10/2024
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
Prayer
1. The instant writ petition has been filed, by way of pro
bono publico, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for the following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction,
including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside
the order contained in Memo No. 693/2024 dated
23.04.2024 [Annexure-7] issued by Ranchi University,
Ranchi, wherein the earlier direction for admitting
students in the Constituent Colleges of Ranchi University
for Academic Session 2024-26 in the Intermediate
Courses as contained in Letter bearing Memo No.
690/2024 dated 20.04.2024 [Annexure-6] has been
recalled in a most illegal and arbitrary manner and
contrary to the directions issued by the State of
Jharkhand and/or Jharkhand Academic Council.
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate
writ/order/direction including Writ of Mandamus
directing the Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi to
immediately and forthwith issue necessary directions to
its 13 Constituent Colleges to take admission of students
in the Intermediate Courses for Academic Session 2024-
26, especially because due to non-admission of the
students in the Intermediate Courses in the Constituent
Colleges of Ranchi University, Ranchi, education
prospects and careers of 16,128 students have been put
at stake.
(iii) For issuance of further appropriate
writ/order/direction including Writ of Declaration,
declaring that the action of the Respondent- Ranchi
University, Ranchi in restraining the Constituent Colleges
from admitting students in the Intermediate Courses
pertaining to the Arts, Commerce and Science for the
Academic Session 2024-26 on the alleged ground of
accreditation by The National Assessment and
Accreditation Council (hereinafter referred to as 'NAAC'
for short] is per se illegal, arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, because
accreditation by NAAC has no nexus whatsoever with the
admission of students in the Intermediate Courses in
Constituent Colleges of Ranchi University, Ranchi.
(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Brief facts of the case:
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the
writ petition reads as under:
3. The disputes involved in the instant Public Interest
Litigation allegedly pertains to arbitrary and illegal action of
Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi in abruptly stopping
and/or restraining the process of admission in the
Intermediate Courses of Arts, Science and Commerce in 13
Constituent Colleges of Ranchi University, due to which
further education prospects and careers of about 16,128
students have allegedly been put to a stake.
4. It is stated that Government of India promulgated a
National Education Policy, 2020, wherein it has been
proposed for changing the pattern of school education by
introducing a new pattern of study popularly known as
'Higher Secondary Stage for Classes 9 to 12'.
5. Under the National Education Policy, 2020, it was
provided, inter alia, that education up to Standard- XII shall
be provided by schools only and the existing colleges which
are providing Intermediate Courses i.e. 10+2 Courses in
various streams namely, Arts, Science and Commerce would
be phased out and the students would be linked to the
schools in a phase-wise manner for taking education for 10+2
Courses i.e. Intermediate Courses.
6. It is stated that although, National Education Policy,
2020 attempted to phase out the Intermediate Courses
offered by Colleges by the end of the Academic Session 2023-
24 but due to various practical difficulties including
inadequate infrastructures and unavailability of 10+2 Schools
offering program for 10+2 courses, the said phasing out of
Intermediate Courses in Colleges have not yet been achieved.
7. It has further been stated that a meeting was held on
23.11.2022 under Chairmanship of the Secretary, Higher and
Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, wherein a
decision was taken in terms of National Education Policy,
2020 to stop continuation of imparting education of
Intermediate Courses in Colleges and has proposed for
linking of the available seats to the nearest 10+2 schools of
the said Colleges.
8. However, as already stated above due to unavailability
of necessary infrastructure including adequate availability of
10+2 Schools, another meeting was held under the
Chairmanship of Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 28.06.2023 in
which, it was decided that the phasing out of admissions in
Intermediate Courses in the Colleges would be done in a
phased manner and there would be no restriction upon the
Colleges in taking admission of students at Intermediate
Level. The minutes of the said meeting was communicated
vide letter no. 170 dated 13.07.2023 to all the Universities.
9. In terms of the decision taken by the Respondent-State
of Jharkhand, Respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council for
the Academic Session 2024-26 has issued a direction to all
the Colleges in the State of Jharkhand including Constituent
Colleges for admitting students in the Intermediate Courses
for the Academic Session 2024-26. While issuing directions to
the respective Colleges to continue admission in the
Intermediate Courses. Respondent-Jharkhand Academic
Council restricted the numbers of seats in each stream for
admitting students in the respective Colleges. For Constituent
Colleges, the seats were restricted to 384 per stream i.e. 384
students to be admitted each in Arts, Science and Commerce.
10. In pursuant to the aforesaid communication issued by
Jharkhand Academic Council, Respondent-Ranchi University,
Ranchi vide its letter contained in Memo No. 690/2024 dated
20.04.2024 issued communication to all Colleges affiliated
under it including Constituent Colleges to take admission for
Academic Session 2024-26 in the Intermediate Courses by
restricting the seats for admission up to 384 students per
stream. The aforesaid letter issued by Respondent- Ranchi
University, Ranchi was stated to be in accordance with the
directions issued by Respondent-State of Jharkhand and/or
Jharkhand Academic Council and the process of admission
was to start for the Academic Session 2024-26.
11. It has further been stated that results for Matric Course
was published by JAC on 19th April, 2023 and by CBSE on
13th May, 2023 and it is only thereafter, that the students
could have taken admission in the Intermediate Courses
offered by the affiliated and/or Constituent Colleges of Ranchi
University, Ranchi.
12. But, in utter disregard to the directions issued by
Respondent-State of Jharkhand and/or Jharkhand Academic
Council, Vice Chancellor of Respondent- Ranchi University,
Ranchi vide its letter contained in Memo No. 693/24 dated
23.04.2024 has recalled its earlier letter dated 20.04.2024,
wherein all affiliated and/or Constituent Colleges were
directed to take admission in Intermediate Courses for the
Academic Session 2024-26. In the said letter the only
reasoning given by the Respondent- Ranchi University,
Ranchi was that the Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi
is in the process of getting its accreditation done through
NAAC and, in view of the said fact, process of admission is
being stopped for the Academic Session 2024-26.
13. It has further been stated that under the respondent-
Ranchi University, altogether 13 constituent colleges are
there. In the aforesaid 13 Constituent Colleges, in view of the
direction issued by Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi,
no admissions are being taken by the said Colleges due to
which life and/or educational prospects of 16,128 students
have been put at stake and only ground on which the
Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi issued restraining
order for admitting students in Intermediate Courses is due
to the pending accreditation done by NAAC, which is an
autonomous institution of University Grants Commission
(UGC) and the said autonomous institution has been created
primarily for the purpose of periodic assessment and
accreditation of institutions of higher educations and units
thereof and the grant and/or non-grant of such accreditation
by NAAC has no co-relation and/or nexus with the admission
of the students whatsoever.
14. In the State of Jharkhand, there are five universities
including Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi. In respect
of all the aforesaid five Government Universities which are
functioning in the State of Jharkhand as yet NAAC
accreditation has not been granted in favour of any of the
Universities but it is only the Respondent-Ranchi University,
Ranchi which has issued arbitrary direction for stopping
admission in Intermediate Courses for the Academic Session
2024-26 only on the ground of pendency of NAAC
accreditation.
15. However, all the other four Universities are permitting
admissions in the Intermediate Courses for the Academic
Session 2024-26 in its affiliated and/or Constituent Colleges
and the only the Respondent- Ranchi University has
restricted the admission in the Intermediate Courses of its
affiliated and/or Constituent Colleges.
16. Even under Respondent- Ranchi University, there are
certain Colleges which are Minority Institutions and in the
said Minority Institutions also admissions are going on in the
Intermediate Courses and no restriction has been put by
Respondent- Ranchi University regarding admitting students
in the Intermediate Courses of such Minority Institutions. The
fee structure of the Constituent Colleges for Intermediate
Courses are very meager as compared to the fee structure of
private colleges including Minority Colleges and there is an
approximate difference of fees of about ten times in both the
aforesaid two types of colleges. But due to stoppage of
admission in Intermediate Courses in the Constituent
Colleges of Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi several
poor and tribal students of the State of Jharkhand
particularly, those residing in and around the Districts of
Ranchi, Khunti, Simdega etc. have been adversely affected.
17. It has been submitted that when the petitioner visited
Mandar College, Mandar for carrying out some social
activities on behalf of Agarwal Sabha it was informed by the
students seeking admission in Mandar College in
Intermediate Courses that the admissions have been stopped
due to illegal and arbitrary action of Respondent- Ranchi
University, Ranchi and, in fact, the students even filed a
detailed representation before the Vice-Chancellor of
Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi vide representation
dated 16.05.2024 but as yet no decision has been taken by
Respondent- Ranchi University, for resuming the process of
admission in the Constituent Colleges of Respondent- Ranchi
University, Ranchi in the Intermediate Courses.
18. There are various newspaper reports which have been
published regarding the discrimination which is being done
by the Respondent- Ranchi University, Ranchi in the matter
of admission in Intermediate Courses of its Constituent
Colleges. But no action has been taken, as such present writ
petition by way of Public Interest Litigation.
Submission on behalf of respondents on the issue of
maintainability:
19. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset has
raised a preliminary issue about maintainability of the
instant Public Interest Litigation as because, according to
them, there is no involvement of any public element in the
instant writ petition since and the nature of petition file by
the petitioner cannot be said to be Public Interest Litigation,
on the ground that the present petitioner as per the reference
of his disclosure cannot be said to be aggrieved party and
even he has got no cause of action.
20. It has been contended that the present writ petition has
been filed in the garb of Interest Litigation for seeking
admission of the students in constituent colleges of Ranchi
University for the academic session 2025-26 in the
intermediate courses.
21. The argument has been advanced on behalf of
respondents-Ranchi University that the from the nature of
prayer itself it appears that the present Public Interest
Litigation is not maintainable since the issue herein is for
taking admission in the Courses pertaining to the Arts,
Commerce and Science for the Academic Session 2024-26,
which cannot be said to be interest of people at large rather it
is of the one or the other candidates for whom prayer has
been made for admission in the courses referred above.
22. Further argument has been advanced that how can the
petitioner be said to be a bona fide so that the present
petition can be said to be maintainable when he is no way
concerned with the admission and further admission of the
students under the colleges cannot be said to be a lis in the
nature of Public Interest Litigation having no public interest
at large.
Response on behalf of petitioner on the issue of
maintainability:
23. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that the present Public Interest
Litigation is very much maintainable since the issue involve
in the present Public Interest Litigation is of the bearing the
students who are large in number and taking into
consideration the number of students the present Public
Interest Litigation has been filed. Hence, it is incorrect on the
part of the respondent concerned to raise the issue of the
maintainability of the present writ petition.
24. It has been submitted that the before the Co-ordinate
Bench while passing order on 27.06.2024 the issue of
maintainability was not raised rather the order was passed
directing the Ranchi University to open the portal for
admission in the intermediate course forthwith. As such,
when the Co-ordinate Bench has already passed the order,
the issue of maintainability is not fit to be agitated at the later
stage of hearing of the matter.
Response on behalf of the learned counsel for the
respondents:-
25. In response, learned senior counsel for the University
has submitted that against the interim order passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the contempt case has been
filed, which led the respondent-Ranchi University to move
before the Hon‟ble Apex Court by filing SLP being Special
Leave to Appeal No. 16392 of 2024. The Hon‟ble Apex Court
has been pleased to pass order staying the further proceeding
of the contempt case so as to High Court take a considered
view after hearing the parties and as such the matter is to be
heard irrespective of the order passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench.
Analysis of the issue of maintainability
26. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties
and gone across the pleadings made on behalf of respective
parties in the writ petition and counter affidavits.
27. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced
on behalf of parties, deems it fit and proper to see whether
the lis is in the nature of Public Interest or adversary is
required to be considered and for this purpose, the law laid
down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court along with the interpretation
of word „Public Interest Litigation‟ is also required to be
referred.
28. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar
Pandey v. State of W.B., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349 , at
paragraph nos. 5 to 16 while interpreting the expression
„public interest litigation, has held as under:
"5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression
"public interest litigation". In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4,
4th Edn., "public interest" is defined thus:
"Public interest.--(1) A matter of public or general interest does not
mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of
information or amusement; but that in which a class of the
community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which
their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
6. In Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., "public interest" is defined
as follows:
"Public interest.--Something in which the public, the community at
large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so
narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular
localities, which may be affected by the matters in question.
Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or
national Government."
7. In Janata Dal case [(1992) 4 SCC 305] this Court considered
the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said
judgment, after considering what is public interest, the Court has
laid down as follows: (SCC p. 331)
"53. The expression „litigation‟ means a legal action including all
proceedings therein, initiated in a court of law with the purpose of
enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the
expression „PIL‟ means a legal action initiated in a court of law for
the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the
public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some
interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
8. In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out
as follows: (SCC p. 334)
"62. Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the
requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory,
because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in
private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought
for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold."
9. In para 98 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out
as follows: (SCC pp. 345-46)
"98. While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions
with all emphasis at their command about the importance and
significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also
hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that
courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere
busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious
intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain
or private profit or other oblique consideration."
10. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as
follows: (SCC p. 348, para 109)
"109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and
having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have
a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears
of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their
fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private
profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a
vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court
for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the
threshold."
11. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery
proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are
wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the
disposal of cases of genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts
in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and
extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the
oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed
and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented
and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that
while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil
matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees
and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death and
facing the gallows under untold agony, persons sentenced to life
imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons
suffering from undue delay in service matters -- government or
private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge
amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax
amounts are locked up, detenus expecting their release from the
detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine
queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and
having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome
interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no
public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of
themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous
motivation or for the glare of publicity break the queue muffling
their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get
into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus
criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of
which the queue standing outside the doors of the court never
moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of
genuine litigants and resultantly, they lose faith in the
administration of our judicial system.
12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used
with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be
extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public
interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-
seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in
the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The
attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be
used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at
redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not
publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated
above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a
member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona
fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political
motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow
its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons
with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with
judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives.
Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap
popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown
out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with
exemplary costs
13. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford
Foundation in USA defined "public interest litigation" in its Report
of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows:
"Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to
efforts that provide legal representation to previously
unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been
undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal
services fails to provide such services to significant segments of
the population and to significant interests. Such groups and
interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial
and ethnic minorities and others."
14. The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the
applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information
given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and
indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness
involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting
interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and
reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii)
avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions
seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions.
In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has
to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a
public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by
the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has
to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or
meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men.
They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in
the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the
public or even of their own to protect.
15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and
prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social
balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and
refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public
good. (See State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu [(1994) 2 SCC 481]
and A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills [(1994) 2
SCC 647]. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court
time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the
manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be
misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.
[See Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr) v. K. Parasaran [(1996) 5 SCC
530]. Today people rush to courts to file cases in profusion under
this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire
confidence in courts and among the public.
16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions,
which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence
something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a
large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a
minuscule percentage can legitimately be called public interest
litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have
been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet
unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts are
entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time
which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of
genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra
Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273] this Court held that in service
matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs
involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and
strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to
throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other
interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being
annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to
possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting
answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet
was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner
opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever
such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the courts
should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose
exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out
the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated
so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed
with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts."
[Emphasis supplied]
29. This Court, after having gone through the aforesaid
judgment, found therefrom that the "public interest" as has
been defined by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar
Pandey v. State of W.B. (Supra) means that the matter of
public or general interest does not mean that which is
interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or
amusement; but that in which a class of the community have
a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal
rights or liabilities are affected.
30. It is further evident from the aforesaid judgment that
the reference of the Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition has
been made which defines "public interest" to the effect that
something in which the public, the community at large, has
some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal
rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so
narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular
localities, which may be affected by the matters in question.
Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State
or national Government.
31. The Hon‟ble Apex Court further in State of
Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. (2010)
3 SCC 402, has been pleased to lay down the guidelines as
under paragraph 181, extract of which read as hereunder:
"181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present
case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court
and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to
preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become
imperative to issue the following directions:
(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL
and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for
extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own
procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it
would be appropriate for each High Court to properly
formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and
discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.
Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have
not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within
three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is
directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the
High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court
immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of
the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the
correctness of the contents of the petition before
entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial
public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which
involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be
given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure
that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or
public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no
personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing
the public interest litigation.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by
busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be
discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting
similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the
petitions filed for extraneous considerations."
32. Similar matter has been considered by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 1128 of 2021 [Dr.
Bishnudeo Lal Dass vs. Union of India & Ors.], wherein
prayer was made to set aside the 1st Part of D. Pharm.
Practical Examination conducted alleged to be conducted in
violation of mandatory provisions, but the said petition was
dismissed on ground of maintainability vide order dated 17th
June, 2021 holding that the general people has got nothing to
do with the same rather it will only be restricted to the
students who have appeared or going to appear in the
aforesaid examination.
33. This Court has considered the factual aspects involved
in this case and on the basis of the aforesaid proposition laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in addition thereto reference of
credential which has been mentioned by the petitioner in the
writ petition, is of the view that the present writ petition has
been filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be party
aggrieved rather it is evident from the description made in the
writ petition that he appears to be no way related with the
issue rather he has stated that he is the active member of the
Agrawal Sabha, Ranchi, which takes various work in public
interest and for the people at large.
34. We, at this juncture, is not going into the issue of
credential since the issue of credential is only to be
considered if the writ petition is held to be maintainable.
35. The same would be evident from the nature of prayer
which is for quashing/setting aside the order contained in
Memo No. 693/2024 dated 23.04.2024 [Annexure-7] issued
by Ranchi University, Ranchi, wherein the earlier direction for
admitting students in the Constituent Colleges of Ranchi
University for Academic Session 2024-26 in the Intermediate
Course, issued in pursuance to the National Education Policy
restricting the students to take admission in the Intermediate
Courses for Academic Session 2024-26 has been questioned.
36. The pleading has been made that the writ petition has
been filed on behalf of students who are seeking their
admission in the different colleges under the Ranchi
University.
37. It is, thus, evident that even if the argument of the
petitioner is accepted, the students who are seeking
admission can only be said to be aggrieved and no others.
The public interest litigation since has been interpreted by
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the cases cited and referred above, and
by applying the interpretation in the present facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is not hesitant in
holding that seeking admission in different colleges of the
Ranchi University cannot be said to be public interest
litigation rather it can be said to be litigation in individual
capacity, for which the students aggrieved who are allegedly
affected or would be affected can well approach this Court for
seeking direction in this regard and not in the representative
capacity.
38. It also needs to refer herein that there is no resolution of
the students, however, name of some students have been
referred.
39. The question is that if the writ petition on merit will be
dismissed then how the said order will bind the party that is
a moot question to be considered reason being that the
moment the writ petition is dismissed the other students may
come forward that the judgment in this litigation is not
applicable to them since one or the other students were not
party to the present writ petition.
40. This Court, in view of the above, is of the view that the
based upon the pleading made in the writ petition the same
being the individual cause of action of one or the other
students, as such the present writ petition cannot be said to
be maintainable which has been filed in the garb of public
interest litigation.
41. This Court, in view of the above discussion, is of the
view that the present writ petition filed by way of public
interest litigation is not maintainable.
42. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that on 27.06.2024 the issue of maintainability
was not raised rather the order was passed directing the
Ranchi University to open the portal for admission in the
intermediate course as such, when the Co-ordinate Bench
has already passed the order, the issue of maintainability is
not fit to be agitated.
43. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that the
Co-ordinate Bench has passed order dated 27.06.2024 which
cannot be said to be ground for ignoring the issue of
maintainability reason being that even though the Co-
ordinate Bench has passed the order which was ad interim in
nature but when the issue of maintainability has been raised,
the same is to be decided at the threshold and if the petition
itself is not maintainable then the order passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench cannot prevail upon the issue of
maintainability.In view of the facts, reasons and judicial
pronouncements, the present writ petition is not held to be
maintainable. Accordingly, the instant writ petition filed in
the nature of „Public Interest Litigation, is dismissed being
not maintainable. However, before parting with the order, it is
made clear that the students, if so aggrieved, may approach
appropriate forum by filing independent writ petition for its
consideration on its own merit. Resultantly, the interim order
dated 27.06.2024 stands vacated.
44. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands
disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Alankar/-
A.F.R.
