Dr. Hausila Prasad Sharma Vs. Chancellor Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith Raj Bhawan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....on 29.11.1990 with the direction to the university to consider the case of the petitioner under section 31(3)(b) of the u.p. state universities act, 1973 (the act).2. a meeting of executive council of the university was held on 24.9.1993. however, the case of the petitioner could not be considered as the records pertaining to the petitioner were not placed before the executive council. the case of the petitioner was again reconsidered on 21.1.1996 and it was rejected mentioning therein that the petitioner is not eligible for the same. the petitioner filed a representation before the chancellor which was rejected on 29.7.1997. hence, the present writ petition.3. we have heard counsel for the petitioner and sri neeraj tripathi and sri a.k. singh, the counsel for the respondents.4. neither any reasons have been mentioned in the minutes of the executive council nor in the order of the chancellor as to why the petitioner is ineligible or why he cannot be appointed under section 31(3)(b) of the act. in view of this the order passed by the chancellor dated 29.7.1997 and the minutes of the executive council dated 6.2.1996 relating to the petitioner are quashed. the executive council.....