Ravindra Pratap Vs. Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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. - 2. the petitioner, ravindra pratap was admitted to 3 years degree course of diploma in electronic engineering under multi-point entry and credit system (hereinafter referred to as mpecs) in the institute of engineering and rural technology, allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the iert) for the academic session 1998-99. the petitioner failed to clear examination of the subject of analog in electronics 3rd semester and has also failed in two papers in 4th semester examination. the petitioner also admits the aforesaid legal position, however, he contends that the said rule 15-b be read down in the light of the provisions of rule 16 as well as in light of the purpose for which the aforesaid multi-point entry and credit system was introduced.arun tandon, j.1. heard sri kshitij shailendra advocate on behalf of the petitioner, sri rahul sripat advocate on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, and the standing counsel on behalf of respondent no. 3-state.2. the petitioner, ravindra pratap was admitted to 3 years degree course of diploma in electronic engineering under multi-point entry and credit system (hereinafter referred to as mpecs) in the institute of engineering and rural technology, allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the iert) for the academic session 1998-99. the petitioner failed to clear examination of the subject of analog in electronics 3rd semester and has also failed in two papers in 4th semester examination. the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the director of the iert dated 10.8.2004 whereby the director with reference to rule 15-b of the multi-point entry and credit system examination rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules) adopted by the iert since 1993, provided that no further chance/attempt can be given to the petitioner for clearing the back paper of 3rd semester. this order is under challenge in the present writ petition.3. on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the aforesaid order passed by the director is manifestly illegal inasmuch as under the provisions of rule 16 of the rules read with the purpose for which the multi-purpose entry and credit system was introduced, the petitioner is entitled to be permitted to undertake the back papers in respect of the examinations which the petitioner could not clear, pertaining to 3rd semester and that rule 15-b of the rules is to be read down in the light of the provisions providing for back papers. reliance has been placed in that regard upon the judgment of this court reported in (1999) 3 uplbec 2377, abhiskek rather v. director, institute of engineering and rural technology, allahabad.4. on behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the petitioner was admitted in the year 1998. the period of six years subsequent to his admission in the said course has expired in the year 2004 and therefore, under rule 15-b of the rules he is not entitled to any further opportunity of appearing in back papers or to continue as student in the said course.5. in order to appreciate the controversy raised between the parties it would be appropriate to refer to rule 15-b of the rules which is quoted hereunder :--'to complete a particular diploma programmed the maximum duration shall be double the number of academic years prescribed.'6. from the aforesaid rule it is apparently clear that the entire diploma programmed is required to be completed by the petitioner within the maximum duration which shall be double the number of academic years prescribed. it is not in dispute that the number of academic years prescribed for the course of diploma in electronic engineering in 3 years and, therefore, the maximum duration under rule 15-b works out to 6 years only in respect of the said diploma course. the petitioner as such cannot be permitted to complete the said diploma programmed after expiry of the said 6 years from the year of this admission. the petitioner also admits the aforesaid legal position, however, he contends that the said rule 15-b be read down in the light of the provisions of rule 16 as well as in light of the purpose for which the aforesaid multi-point entry and credit system was introduced.7. in the opinion of the court the language of rule 15-b is clear and specific. it leaves no room for doubt. in no case a candidate can be permitted to continue beyond the maximum duration provided for under rule 15-b. in such circumstances it is not necessary to refer to any other provision including rule 16 or the purpose for which the multi-point entry and credit system has been introduced inasmuch as any opportunity to a candidate to appear in a back paper must be completed within the maximum duration provided under rule 15-b. rule 16 or the purpose for which the multi-point entry and credit system has been introduced cannot in any way extend the maximum duration provided under rule 15-b. so far as the case abhishek rathor v. director institute of engineering and rural technology, allahabad (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is concerned it has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the said judgment the applicability of rule 15-b was not under consideration.8. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.