JamiluddIn Vs. Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
civil - centres for examination - petitioner challenging order not granting self centre to his institution for examination - alleging said order is arbitrary - district level committee selecting centres for examinations not selecting petitioner's institution - reason cited that selected were enough for adjusting examinees - self centres also become grounds for liberal use of unfair means - manager not entitled to question such selection of centres - order valid with no apparent error. - land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the 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. - 5. while parting with the case, i would like to note that no manager has any right to challenge the selection of centres. the court takes judicial notice of the fact that self centres are places of well manipulation and designed centres for permitting candidates to use unfair means by charging money and that is sole interest of the managers of such institutions. 6. in the end, i would also like to note that there is no material on record on behalf of the committee of management authorising the present petitioner to challenge the impugned order.a. k. yog, j.1. one sri jamiluddin, claiming to be the manager of the managing committee of saghir fatima mohammadia girls inter college, agra, has filed the present petition against the impugned order dated 18.3.1998 passed by secretary, board of high school and intermediate, allahabad, whereby the representation of the petitioner for continuing self centre of the said institution has been rejected. the petitioner has not filed copy of the relevant government order, referred to in the impugned order for perusal of the court. 2. on the other hand, the government order, referred to in the impugned order, however, goes to show that there was absolute direction for having self centre for girls' institution for holding board examination.3. the impugned order further shows that district level committees were formed for finalising the list of centres for conducting board examinations and the said district level committee at agra had not assigned any centre for the students of the above mentioned institution. according to the impugned order itself (which fact has not been disputed in the writ petition) such centres were situated within 2-4 kms. the impugned order further shows that the district level committee did not select the petitioner's institution as centre for conducting board of high school/intermediate examinations inasmuch as the centres for holding such examinations were enough and sufficient to accommodate all the examinees of the said year. 4. in view of the above, the decision taken by the district level committee, as held by the secretary of u. p. board, cannot be said to be irrelevant or extraneous. the decision not to have self centre for the girls students of the petitioner's institution as self centre cannot be said to be arbitrary. the decision, in view of the fact stated in the impugned order, is fully justified and cannot be interfered with, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order. 5. while parting with the case, i would like to note that no manager has any right to challenge the selection of centres. the court takes judicial notice of the fact that self centres are places of well manipulation and designed centres for permitting candidates to use unfair means by charging money and that is sole interest of the managers of such institutions. u. p. board and district level committees should be given free hand for selecting centres and this court should not, particularly in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226, constitution of india, interfere with the same as it is an administrative decision. it goes without saying that this court has always jurisdiction to interfere with the administrative orders in the rarest of rare cases, provided petitioner furnishes sufficient material to show that such decision has been taken arbitrarily or with some ulterior motives. 6. in the end, i would also like to note that there is no material on record on behalf of the committee of management authorising the present petitioner to challenge the impugned order. jamiluddin has filed this petition in his personal name. the committee of management, as such, obviously has no grievance against the decision of the district level committee for not continuing self centre at the petitioner's institution. there is no material in the case. 7. the writ petition stands dismissed. no order as to costs.