Devaasheesh Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14176 MP

                                                     1
                           IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                     &
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                           ON THE 29 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                         WRIT PETITION No. 18155 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          DEVAASHEESH DUBEY S/O DR. RAJENDRA KUMAR
                          DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          ADVOCATE R/O 30/2 NEW PALASIA INDORE (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                          (SHRI DEVAASHEESH DUBEY, PETITIONER PRESENT IN PERSON)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
                                TECHNICAL EDUCATION, SKILL DEVELOPMENT
                                AND EMPLOYMENT, MANTRALAYA VALLABH
                                BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                MEDICAL EDUCATION, MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
                                BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                PRINCIPAL      SECRETARY    GENERAL
                                ADMINISTRATION           DEPARTMENT,
                                MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL
                                E D U C AT I O N SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL
                                E D U C AT I O N SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/31/2023
5:52:13 PM
                                                                   2
                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI ANAND SONI, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

                                 T h is petition coming on for admission        this day, Justice Sushrut
                          Arvind Dharmadhikari passed the following:
                                                                  ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

The instant Public Interest Litigation has been filed being aggrieved by the legal wrong and injury caused to thousands of medical students who have and will be undergo counseling process for the purpose of admission to Government as well as Pvt. Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh based on the impugned gazette notification dated 09.03.2018 and other

gazette notifications.

2. By virtue of the present public interest litigation, the petitioner is challenging the vires of gazette notification dated 09.03.2018 issued by Respondent No. 1 i.e., Department of Technical Education, Skill Development & Employment it being ultra vires the Parent Act i.e., Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Sikshan Sansthan (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2007") as well as being in violation to the Madhya Pradesh Government Business (Allocation) Rules. This Court had issued notice to the respondents vide order dated 26.07.2023 leaving open the preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the writ petition.

3. The State has filed I.A. No. 6172/2023, which is an application for dismissal of the writ petition (PIL) on the ground of maintainability.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State raised the objections that the Public Interest Litigation has been filed exclusively and solely challenging the vires of various notifications, as such the same is not Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/31/2023 5:52:13 PM

maintainable and deserves to be dismissed in limine. He further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have held in multitude of cases that vires cannot be challenged in a P.I.L., in any challenge to vires, there must be actual nexus between the person challenging the vires and the cause of action or grievance that is purportedly raised.

5. Learned counsel further contended that it is settled principle of writ jurisprudence that vires cannot be in violation without there being any consequential reliefs. In the present case it is evident from the relief claimed that no consequential relief has been claimed. On these grounds as well this petition is not maintainable.

6. Learned counsel for the State relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Surpreme Court in the case of Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Another vs. C.K. Rajan and Others reported in (2003) 7 SCC 546, where it has been specifically held that:

"Ordinarily, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition by way of public interest litigation questioning the constitutionality or validity of a statute or a statutory rule".

7. Learned counsel for the State further pointed out that the petitioner had filed identical writ petition bearing W.P. No. 1627/2022 before the Principal Seat of this Court challenging the very same impugned notifications, however subsequently he withdrew the same by filing the application for withdrawal,

which was permitted with the liberty to file again, if occasion arise. The petitioner had taken liberty from the Principal Seat, therefore, the petition was only maintainable at the Principal Seat and not before these Bench.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. We find force in the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General and in the light of Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/31/2023 5:52:13 PM

(supra), this Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable and the objections raised by the respondent/State is sustained.

Accordingly, this petition being not maintainable is hereby, dismissed.

                            (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                                     (PRANAY VERMA)
                                     JUDGE                                                JUDGE
                          Vatan




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/31/2023
5:52:13 PM