Judgment:
ORDER
Ratnam, J.
1. These civil revision petitions have been preferred by the Head of Sri Kasi Mutt (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Mutt') against the order passed by the District Court West Thanjavur, In I.A. Nos. 272 and 262 of 1985 in A.S. No. 137 of 1985 and I.A. No. 15 of 1988 and 68 of 1986 in A.S. No. 62 of 1986 filed by the Madurai Kamaraj University Teachers' Association, represented by its President (hereinafter referred to as the Association', for short) and the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Commissioner and Secretary, Education Department, Madras-9. respectively.
2. Briefly, stated, the circumstances giving rise to these civil revision petitions are as follows:
The Mutt claimed that it had established as a religious denomination and has been maintaining, managing and administering Sri-la-Sri Kasivasi Swaminatha Samigal Senthamil Kalloori (College) at Tirupanandal and Sri Kumaraguru-paraswamigal Arts College at Arulnandhi Nagar, Srivaikundam and that the educational institutions so run by it fall outside the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in view of Articles 14, 19, 25, 26 and 30 of the constitution of India, A writ petition in W.P. No. 348 of 1975 earlier filed by the Mutt was dismissed with a direction that it will be open to the Mutt to institute a suit for deciding the question whether it is a denominational institution and whether the educational instutitions run by it would be protected by Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Consistent with that, the Mutt instituted O.S. No. 348 of 1983, District Munsif s Court Kumbakonam, which was later transferred to the Sub Court, Kumbakonam, and re-numbered as O.S. No. 18 of 1985, against the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Commissioner and Secretary, Education Department, Fort St. George, Madras praying for a declaration that the Mutt is a religious denomination and that the provisions of the Act are inapplicable to the colleges run by it and for a perpetual injunction restraining the State of Tamil Nadu from interfering with the Administration and management of the institution run by the Mutt and for recovery of certain amounts as well, after issuing notice in accordance with Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure. The State of Tamil Nadu, the defendant in O.S. No. 18 of 1985, resisted that claim and the right to the reliefs prayed for by the Mutt on the several grounds set out in the written statement filed, which need not be noticed in extenso for purposes of these Civil Revision Petitions. Suffice it to say that the Mutt as well as the State of Tamil Nadu filed documents in support of their respective cases and also examined witnesses. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, by judgment dated 12.8.85, the learned subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam after overruling the defences raised by the State of Tamil Nadu, granted a decree in favour of the Mutt as prayed for. Aggrieved by that judgment and decree, the state of Tamil Nadu has preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 62 of 1986 before the District Court, West Thanjavur, and that appeal is pending. While matters stood thus, the Association, a third party to the suit and the appeal, filed I.A. No. 262 of 1985 to grant leave to it to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 18 of 1985, Sub Court, Kumbakonam, on the ground that the interest of the members of the Association would be affected by the decision in O.S. No. 18 of 1985 and, therefore, it should be permitted to prefer an appeal. This application was resisted by the Mutt on the ground that the Association is not in any manner interested in or affected by the judgment in O.S. No. 18 of 1985 as that matter was purely between the Mutt on the one hand and the State of Tamil Nadu on the other regarding the applicability of the provisions of the Act referred to earlier and that if the Association or its members were in any manner aggrieved, it was always open to them to pursue such remedies as are available under the law. It was also further pleaded that a remote interest or possibility of prejudice will not enable any person to come on record. Apart from filing I.A. No. 262 of 1985 praying for permission to file an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 18 of 1985, the Association also filed I.A. No. 15 of 1988 praying that it should be impleaded as the second respondent in A.S. No. .62 of 1986, filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 18 of 1985.
3. Both the applications, viz., I.A. Nos. 262 of 1985 and 15 of 1988 were dealt with together by the District Court, West Thanjavur, and it was found that the Association would be a necessary party or at least a proper party to the appeal, as the Association would be interested in the outcome of the litigation launched by the Mutt. On such a conclusion, I.A. Nos. 262 of 1985 and 15 of 1988 were allowed, against which C.R.P. Nos. 1766 and 1767 of 1989 have been preferred by the Mutt. In I.A. No. 272 of 1985, in A.S. No. 137 of 1985, permission to prefer which appeal was granted to the Association it prayed for stay of operation of the decree in O.S. No. 18 of 1985, Sub Court, Kumbakonam, pending disposal of that appeal on the ground that complication and confusion will result in the administration of the colleges, if there was no order of stay. This was opposed by the Mutt on the ground that right from 1983 onwards, an interim injunction had been in force and under the decree also, the injunction had operated and that nothing objectionable in the matter of the management of the institutions had been established to justify the grant of stay. A similar application in I.A. No. 68 of 1986 in A.S. No. 62 of 1986 for stay was taken out by the State of Tamil Nadu in its appeal and that was also opposed by the Mutt on more or less similar grounds. I.A. Nos. 272 and 68 of 1986 were also dealt with together by the District Court, West Thanjavur, and in I.A. No. 68 of 1986, stay was granted in so far as the institution in Tirupanandal is concerned and in I.A. No. 272 of 1985 also, stay was granted giving liberty to the Mutt to administer the college as before, but imposing a condition that no teachers or servants should be appointed till the disposal of the appeal and should such a necessity arise, the proposal should be reported to the State of Tamil Nadu and appointments could be made subject to orders of Court. In C.R.P. Nos. 1072 and 1768 of 1989, the Mutt has challenged the correctness of these orders.
4. It is not in dispute that if the propriety of the order granting permission to the Association to prefer the appeal is decided, that would have a material bearing on the application filed by the Association in I.A. No. 15 of 1988 and also the stay application in I.A. No. 272 of 1985. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. .262 of 1985, the Association has stated that the members of the Association consisting of the staff of the college would be worst affected and inasmuch as the State of Tamil Nadu had not taken any steps to prefer the appeal or ask for stay of the operation of the decree, it became necessary to accord permission for the Association to prefer the appeal. This claim of the Association had been refused by the Mutt in its counter on the ground that the Association is not either affected or prejudiced and that if any right of the members of the Association is infringed, they could seek redress according to law and for that purpose, they need not be permitted to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 18 of 1985 or even be impleaded as a party to A.S. No. 62 of 1986, preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court below has proceeded on the footing that some rights available to the members of the Association under the provisions of the Act are likely to be affected, if the Association is not permitted to prefer the appeal or get itself impleaded as a party to the appeal preferred by the State in A.S. No. 62 of 1986. This approach of the Court below is not quite correct, for, the Mutt has prayed for certain reliefs relating to the applicability of the provisions of the Act in relation to the educational institutions run by it. The State of Tamil Nadu, in the course of the suit, had attempted to sustain the applicability of that Act to the institutions in question, though it had failed in that attempt before the trial Court. It must be remembered that the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Act to the institutions in question cannot be decided merely on the basis of the benefits that may arise out of such application to other persons. Essentially, it is for the State to support the applicability of its legislation and such persons as may happen to be the beneficiaries of such applicability cannot have any say at all in such a matter. It has also to be remembered that the Association, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, does not as such have any direct or immediate interest in the outcome on this litigation, except perhaps on behalf of its members. When the Association, which is a society, as a distinct entity, does not have any immediate interest, there is no reason as to why it should be permitted either to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 18 of 1985 or get itself impleaded as a party to the appeal A.S. No. 62 of 1986, preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu, It is in this connection that the decision in P. Animal v. State of Madras : AIR1953Mad485 relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner is relevant. There, it has been laid down that it would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be prejudicially affected by a decree or judgment and that if legal rights of such a person are adversely affected by anything done, it will be open to such a person to counter it by taking other steps. As pointed out earlier, the Association has no immediate or direct interest and it is only the State of Tamil Nadu which is anxious to give effect to the provisions of the Act in respect of the institutions run by the Mutt and if the State succeeds in that attempt, then the benefits arising out of the applicability of the Act, would be made available to the members of the staff of the institutions, who are also members of the Association. It would also be appropriate in this connection to refer to the decision in B. Prabhakar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh : AIR1986SC210 . An objection was taken in that case, though in the course of writ proceedings, that all affected parties had not been joined and such non-joinder would be fatal. This contention was repelled on the ground that even if some individual affected parties have not been impleaded, their interests are identical with those who have been sufficiently and well represented and when relief is claimed against the State and no particular relief against any individual party, the failure to implead all affected parties is no bar to the maintainability of the petitions. Reference can also be made in this connection to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Film Federation of India v. Union of India : AIR1986Mad43 . In that case also, a writ petition was filed challenging the validity of Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984, and an application was taken out for impleading a person as a party respondent to that writ petition on the ground that it is an appex body directly and intimately connected with the film industry whose members earn their livelihood through the film industry. In the appeal against the order dismissing that application, it was urged that the appellant was interested in sustaining the validity of the Amendment Act because its members are the beneficiaries of that Act. Rejecting this contention the Division Bench pointed out that a legislative enactment is intended to give effect to some policy and implement it and persons who happen to be beneficiaries of such a policy enacted in the form of legislation cannot have any say in the matter, which is exclusively within the domain of the Government activity and it is primarily and wholly for the Government to support its own legislation. An anomalous situation that is likely to result, if a beneficiary is allowed to be joined as a party and further challenges the decision, while, the State decides not to pursue the matter further, was also noticed. It is thus seen from the principles laid down in the afforesaid decisions that where the question is one of applicability and implementation of the provisions of the Act, as in the case the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, it is for the State to take the necessary steps for such application or implemenation, in which private persons or even an association of persons, who are likely to be the beneficiaries, have really no say. Though on the question of who is the person aggrieved, a reference was made to the decisions in The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros : [1970]3SCR846 and the Full Bench of this Court in M.L. Krishnamurthy v. The District Revenue Officer Vellore, North Arcot District & Others 1989 T.L.N.J. 200, those decisions turned upon the interpretation of the provisions of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 and related to the locus standi of an existing rice-mill owner to raise objection to a proposed rice-mill in the light of the fundamental right to carry on business and those decisions are not of as much assistance in this case involving an adjudication against the State regarding the applicability of the provisions of the Act before the civil court. That leave for consideration the decisions in State of Punjab v. Amar Singh : [1974]3SCR152 and National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan : (1983)ILLJ45SC strongly relied on by learned counsel for the Association, In the first of these cases, while accepting the position that a person who is not a party to a decree or order may with the leave of the Court, prefer an appeal from such decree or order, he could be allowed to do so, only if he is either bound by the order or is aggrieved by it or is prejudically affected by it. It has already been noticed that as an Association, it cannot feel aggrieved by the adjudication or can claim to be prejudically affected or even bound by the judgment in O.S. No. 18 of 1985, considering the reliefs prayed for in the suit against the State of Tamil Nadu, which alone can implement and give effect to the provisions of the Act in so far as the eductional institutions run by the Mutt are concerned, the Association cannot be considered or regarded as a person interested in the application of the provisions of the Act to justify its being impleaded, as a party to the appeal preferred by the State or the grant of permission to prefer an independent appeal. The other decision relied on by learned counsel for the Association in National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan : (1983)ILLJ45SC laid down that workers of a company are entitled to appear at the hearing of a winding up petition either to support or to oppose it and so long as no winding up order is made, the workers have a locus standi to appear and be heard in the winding up petition before its admission and making an order for advertisement as also thereafter, until an order is made for winding up. That decision was rendered in the view taken by the Supreme Court with reference to the relation of the workers vis-a-vis the company. The interest of the workmen was sought to be justified on their contribution of labour as distinct from capital to a productive enterprise and to some extent on the language employed in Rule 34 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. That decision also cannot have any application on the facts and circumstances of this case, depending upon the decision in the appeal already preferred by the Government in A.S. No. 62 of 1986, the members of the Association may or may not become entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act, but that would only be the result of the adjudication to which the State of Tamil Nadu alone is a party, though such an adjudication may remotely or indirectly confer or negative benefits on the members of the Association. In that sense, the Association or its members will be neither necessary nor proper parties. Thus, on a careful consideration of the facts giving rise to the institution of the suit and the reliefs prayed for therein against the State of Tamil Nadu only, the Association cannot be by any stretch of imagination be considered to be a person whose interests are prejudically affected by its not being impleaded as a party to A.S. No. 62 of 1986 or even to be permitted to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 18 of 1985, as a third party.
5. In so far as the stay application filed by the Association in I.A. No. 272 of 1985 is concerned, in view of the conclusion already arrived at that the Association as such is not in any manner aggrieved by the adjudication and it would also not be either a proper or a necessary party, it follows that the Association is not entitled to pray for stay of operation of the decree in O.S. No. 18 of 1985, Sub Court, Kumbakonam, till the disposal of the appeal preferred by it in A.S. No. 137 of 1985 with the leave of the Court.
6. That leaves for consideration the stay application preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu in I.A. No. 68 of 1986, out of which C.R.P. No. 1768 of 1989 has arisen. It is not the case of the State of Tamil Nadu that during the period of almost four years since the disposal of the suit O.S. No. 18 of 1985 on 12.8.1985 till 7.4.1989 when the order of stay was passed, the Mutt had committed any irregularities in the matter of the administration of the educational institutions concerned. Further, it is seen from paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the Mutt in I.A. No. 68 of 1986 that since 1983 onwards, an interim injunction had remained in force, which was also subsequently granted under the decree in O.S. No. 18 of 1985. The only ground stated in support of the stay application filed by the State of Tamil Nadu is that the amount, if paid, cannot be recovered and multiplicity of proceedings could be avoided by the grant of stay. It is difficult to understand as to how an order for stay of execution of the decree in O.S. No. 18 of 1985 infavour of the Mutt is going to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The difficulty in recovering the amounts adverted to in the affidavit appears to be without any basis, for, there is no indication about any indebtedness on the part of the Mutt. Unfortunately, the Court below has not considered the fact that during the period when there was no order of stay, no complaint at all had been made against the administration of the institutions by the Mutt and that certainly establishes that there is no justification whatever for granting stay at this belated stage. The Court below has unfortunately not borne in mind any of the aforesaid aspects while considering the application for granting Jeave to the Association or for impleading it as a party respondent to the appeal preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu or even when the Association and the State of Tamil Nadu have prayed for stay and had arrived at conclusions, which cannot be sustained on the legal principles laid down in the decisions referred to earlier. Consequently, the civil revision petitions are all allowed and the orders of the Court below in I.A. No. 272 and 262 of 1985, 15 of 1988 and 68 of 1986 are set aside and those applications will stand dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
7. The learned District Judge, West Thanjavur, is however directed to dispose of the Appeal in A.S. No. 62 of 1986 on or before 28.2.1990 and report such disposal to this court.