R.K. Gupta and anr. Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. sharma, j. 1.the petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the order dated april 29, 2000 (annexure- 8) issued by the respondent university of rajasthan, whereby the rent of the tenanted shops was increased without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. the petitioner has been the tenant of the respondent university in the shops in question and it appears that the syndicate vide resolution dated april 22, 2000 decided to increase the rent of the shops.2. the learned counsel mr. r.d. rastogi, appearing on behalf of the respondent university raised preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that in contraclual matters powers under article 226 of the constitution of india can not be invoked. the learned counsel placed reliance on kerala state electricity board and anr. v. kurien e. kaiathil and ors. (1). their lordships of the supreme court court in the said case indicated that 'the contract between the parties is in the realm of private law. it is not a statutory contract. the disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not have been agitated in a petitioner under article 226 of the constitution of india. whether any amount is due and if so, how much and refusal of the appellant to pay it is justified or not, are not matters which could have been agitated and decided in a writ petition. the contractor should have been relegated to other remedies.'3. 1 am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced by mr. r.d. rastogi. the ratio indicated in kerala state electricity board and anr. v. kurien e. kalathii and ors. (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. the question that arises in the instant case does not relate to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the parties. the precise controversy in the instant case is to whether prejudicial order can be passed against the party without affording an opportunity of hearing to him.4. in the instant case i am not deciding the rights and liabilities of the parties arising out of a contract. the short point that requires my consideration is whether the syndicate of the university of rajasthan is empowered to take a decision to the prejudice of the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. the crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent university mr. raslogi is that the petitioner ought to have instituted a civil suit and in view of alternative remedy available to him the petitioner is not entitled to invoke jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india.5. it is settled law that where the principles of nature justice are flouted this court under article 226 of the constitution of india can interfere in the matter even if the party has effecacious alternative remedy.6. in view of what i have discussed hereinabove, i allow the writ petition andquash the order dated april 29, 2000 holding it arbitrary and violative of article 14 ofthe constitution. i however grant liberty to the respondent university to take a freshdecision after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. the parties shall beartheir own costs.