Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad Through Its Zila Pramukh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to this case, in succinct, are that the petitioner, claiming itself to be a duly registered students union, has field this writ petition as a public interest litigation, alleging, inter alia, that vide order dated 22-8-1947, the land measuring seven bighas in the bari of late kothari moti singhji was given to the hindi vidhya peeth, udaipur free of nazrana and nasul tax for educational purposes with the stipulation that if the land is not used for the purpose for which it had been recommended for being given, it would revert to the state and the said educational institution would not be entitled to any compensation. ') is to promote the public interest which mandates that violation of legal or constitutional rights of a large number of persons, poor, down-trodden, ignorant, socially or economically disadvantaged should not go unredressed. , (1), the hon'ble supreme court held as under :where the court finds, on being moved by an aggrieved party or by any public spirited individual or social action group, that the executive is remiss in discharging its obligation under the constitution or the law, so that the poor and the under-privileged continued to be subjected to exploitation and injustice or are deprived of their social and economic entitlements or that social legislation enacted for their benefits is not being implemented this depriving of their rights and benefits conferred upon them, the courts certainly must intervenes and compel the executive to carry out its constitutional and legal obligations and ensure that the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community are no longer subjected to exploitation or injustice and they are able to realise their social and economical rights. state of madhya pradesh (3) the hon'ble supreme court has observed as under :justice is supreme and justice ought to be beneficial for society so that the society is placed in a better situation. it also provides that the state government shall have the right to cause an inspection to be made by such person, as it may direct, of the vidhyapeeth, its buildings, laboratories and equipments and of any institution maintained by the vidhyapeeth, and also of examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the vidhyapeeth, and to cause an inquiry to be made in like manner in respect of any matter connected with the vidhyapeeth. 15. be that as it may, from the record it appears that the respondent institution has leased out certain portion of the land which was granted by the erstwhile state of mewar in the year 1948. neither party has placed on record the 'patta' alleged to have been issued on 30-4-1948, by which the grant of land, recommended vide annx. by allowing the different use of the land, it would amount to denial of right to enjoy the property for the purpose other than the purpose for which it was granted. to safe-guard the interest of the students; 18. in view of the above, it is expedient to direct the respondent district collector, udaipur to conduct a detailed inquiry with regard to the land or building of the respondent vidhyapeeth already allowed for commercial use for making good their regularities or illegalities, if any, resulted by allowing the land or building in question for the purpose other than educational one and submit the same to the state government within four months.panwar, j. 1. the instant writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to conduct a proper investigation into every transaction which, has enabled the use of property for the purposes other than educational purposes and also restraining them from entering into such transaction for furtherance of any activity other than educational.2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to this case, in succinct, are that the petitioner, claiming itself to be a duly registered students union, has field this writ petition as a public interest litigation, alleging, inter alia, that vide order dated 22-8-1947, the land measuring seven bighas in the bari of late kothari moti singhji was given to the hindi vidhya peeth, udaipur free of nazrana and nasul tax for educational purposes with the stipulation that if the land is not used for the purpose for which it had been recommended for being given, it would revert to the state and the said educational institution would not be entitled to any compensation. it has further been alleged in the writ petition that the respondents no. 3 and 4 are bent upon to use the land for commercial purposes. when the matter was agitated before the respondent-authorities, respondents no. 3 and 4, vide annx. 2 dated 19-2-1980, assured the petitioner union that for the construction of bank building or any other commercial purposes and it was further assured that if any construction is made, the same shall be utilised for the purpose of the educational institution. despite this, when the building constructed on the land in dispute was allotted to oriental bank of commerce, the petitioner union agitated the matter tooth and nail and ultimately an understanding reached between the parties that since the functioning of the bank has commenced, it shall be allowed to continue for five years more and the additional district magistrate, udaipur shall hold an inquiry into the matter, of which the report shall be submitted to the district collector, udaipur (respondent no. 2) for further action. the agreement arrived at between the parties in this regard is annx. 3 the assertion of the petitioner union is that in blatant violation of the agreement (ann.3) and the assurance (ann.2.) the land allotted for educational purposes is being put to commercial use and thereby the respondents are violating the terms and conditions of the allotment order ann. 1. hence this writ petition.3. answering respondents no. 3 and 4 have filed a detailed reply refuting the averments made in the petition and raised certain preliminary objections to the effect that (i) the petition is pre-mature as the necessary approval for transfer of land has not been obtained from the director of education, (ii) rajasthan vidhyapeeth kul, udaipur and rajasthan vidhyapeeth (deemed university), udaipur are the necessary parties but they have not been impleaded as such but only respondents no. 3 and 4 have been impleaded as the party-respondents; (iii) petitioner union has no locus standi to maintain the petition union has no locus standi to maintain the petition because it has neither any interest in the educational institution nor in the general public; and (iv) the property is not being alienated but it is being put on lease so as to provide a source of regular income for running the educational institution and it is in consonance with the decision of the. state government dated 4-9-2001 (annx. r.3/1), which authorises leasing out vacant land of government schools for commercial use for generating income.4. we have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.5. before us, nothing has been urged with regard to preliminary objections raised in the reply-affidavit. it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner union that the land had been granted to the institution for uplifting the education in the area with the condition stipulated in the order of grant (annx. 1) and as such the land granted for educational purpose cannot be used for the purpose other than for which it was granted, respondents no. 3 and 4 are utilizing the land for commercial purposes to subserve their own cause and despite assurance and written memorandum of undertaking, they are bent upon to put the land for commercial use to gain undue profit.6. per contra, mr. m. s. singhvi, learned counsel appearing for answering, respondents no. 3 and 4, urged that the constructions have been made on the vacant land and the same have not been put to commercial use for earning any personal gain but for meeting out the required expenses for smooth running of the educationalinstitution and this decision is in consonance with the decision taken by the state government for leasing out vacant lands of the government schools for commercial use to generate income as is evident from the news item dated 4-9-2001 (annx. r 3/1) published in the daily news-paper 'danik bhasker.' it has further been contended that it has become a hard nut to crack to run the educational institution for paucity of fundsand as such if any decision is taken for generating the income to run the institutionsmoothly then it is in the interest of the student and general public and such decisioncannot be termed as an public and such decision cannot be termed as an out-come of ulterior consideration or oblique motive to earn any personal gain by any of the respondent authorities.7. public interest litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation. the purpose of public interest litigation (for short, 'p.i.l.') is to promote the public interest which mandates that violation of legal or constitutional rights of a large number of persons, poor, down-trodden, ignorant, socially or economically disadvantaged should not go unredressed. the court can take cognizance in p.i.l. when there are complaints which shock the judicial conscience. p.i.l. is pro bona publico and should not smack of any ulterior motive and no person has a right to achieve any ulterior purpose through such litigation.8. in the case of state of himachal pradesh v. a parent of a student of medical college, shimla and ors., (1), the hon'ble supreme court held as under :-'where the court finds, on being moved by an aggrieved party or by any public spirited individual or social action group, that the executive is remiss in discharging its obligation under the constitution or the law, so that the poor and the under-privileged continued to be subjected to exploitation and injustice or are deprived of their social and economic entitlements or that social legislation enacted for their benefits is not being implemented this depriving of their rights and benefits conferred upon them, the courts certainly must intervenes and compel the executive to carry out its constitutional and legal obligations and ensure that the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community are no longer subjected to exploitation or injustice and they are able to realise their social and economical rights.'9. in mohammed anis v. union of india and ors. (2), the hon'ble supree court has held that a case should not be entertained unless the petitioner points out that his legal rights have been infringed.10. while entertaining p.i.l., the court should be conscious and try to ascertain the bonafides of the petitioner and further find out whether he is really a public spiritedperson or he has approached the court to settle his ulterior score through the legal process.11. in jai kumar v. state of madhya pradesh (3) the hon'ble supreme court has observed as under :-'justice is supreme and justice ought to be beneficial for society so that the society is placed in a better situation. law courts exist for the society and ought to rise up to the society and ought to rise up to the occasion to do the needful in the matter and as such ought to act in a manner so as to subserve the basic requirement of the society.'12. on 17-6-1987 a meeting was convened at the district office, udaipur, consisting of the representatives of the vidhyapeeth and the students union. the representatives of the petitioner union, mohan lal sukhadia university, udaipur and the kshramjeevi vidhyalaya were the participants. in the meeting, it was agreed that in future, rajasthan vidhyapeeth' and its other sister educational institutions shall neither sell or alienate any part of the land, nor shall let it out or lease out to any one. from this memorandum, it also appears that the principal and the organisation secretary (mantri) agreed that whatever the land and property of the vidhyapeeth had been transferred and for which certain agreements had been entered into between various parties for the transfer of land or building etc., such transactions shall be inquired into by the additional district magistrate, udaipur and the additional district magistrate was further required to examine the validity of the constructions raised and it was agreed that in future, the vidhyapeeth shall neither sell or alienate any part of the land, nor shall let out or lease out the same. thus, from this memorandum, it is very much clear that the petitioner union has been espousing the cause and welfare of the students as it has been a party to the various activities in past. in this view of the matter, the locus of the petitioner union is not upon to challenge.13. respondents no. 3 and 4 have placed on record memorandum of association and rules (annx. r/3/2). apart from this, one of the objectives of the vidhyapeeth is to promote education for the masses upto higher stage through its adult and continuing education programmes; provide educational facilities, specially to underprivileged 'working people' to enable them to improve their functional efficiency as also their social and economic upliftment and develop literature for adult and continuing education programmes in consonance with the linguistics, cultural and development needs of the region. it also provides that the income and property of the vidhyapeeth, however derived, shall be applied towards the promotion of the objectives as set-forth in the said memorandum of association and rules. it further provides that the rajasthan vidhyapeeth shall hold, transfer or otherwise dispose of any immovable properties so acquired and settled in society/trust for purpose of the vidhyapeeth provided that where such assets have been created through a grant from any agency, prior concurrence of the agency concerned will be obtained in this behalf. it also provides that the state government shall have the right to cause an inspection to be made by such person, as it may direct, of the vidhyapeeth, its buildings, laboratories and equipments and of any institution maintained by the vidhyapeeth, and also of examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the vidhyapeeth, and to cause an inquiry to be made in like manner in respect of any matter connected with the vidhyapeeth.14. from annx. r/3/6, it appears that apart from other sources of income, the respondents are recipient of grant-in-aid from the state government as also from the university grants commission. however, it is not clear that the funds received by the vidhyapeeth from all these sources are adequate or not, for smooth running of the institution.15. be that as it may, from the record it appears that the respondent institution has leased out certain portion of the land which was granted by the erstwhile state of mewar in the year 1948. neither party has placed on record the 'patta' alleged to have been issued on 30-4-1948, by which the grant of land, recommended vide annx. 1, was made. annx. 1 is a letter dated 22- 8-1947 showing of land to hindi vidhyapeeth free of nazrana and nasul tax. from the object as also the intention of the grantee, which can be gathered from annx. 1, one thing is very much clear that the land was granted in favour of respondent institution for running educational activates and the user of the land was put to certain restrictions, namely for the purpose it was granted, i.e. to run an educational institution over the land so granted. the right to transfer or alientate the land so granted in favour of the respondent institution has not been conferred by the grantee. it appears that in the past, the respondents entered into agreements with various persons for transfer of the said land and building, putting the land to be used for the purpose other for which it was granted and that is why the various students unions, including petitioner union, agitated the matter, which is evident from the agitated the matter, which is evident from the letter annx.2 dated 19-2-1980 addressed to the secretary of the petitioner union by the learned vice chancellor, as also from the memorandum dated 17-6-1987. the memorandum dated 17-6-1987 further shows that there had been certain irregularities in transferring the land by the agreements to various persons and for the the vidhyapeeth administration agreed to get the same inquired into by the additional district magistrate, udaipur. the memorandum of association and rules also empowers the state government to cause an inspection, inquiry etc. in respect of the building, laboratories, equipments and other work conducted by the vidhyapeeth. thus, it appears that the state government has an over-all supervision over the functioning of the vidhyapeeth as also the also its property, building etc. there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent ever resolved to transfer, alienate, let out or lease out any part of the land or building constructed thereon. from the memorandum of association and rules, it is also clear that to hold, transfer or otherwise dispose of any immovable property or the asset which have been created through a grant by any agency, prior concurrence of the agency concerned will be obtained in this regard.16. in the instant case, the grant of land was made by the erstwhile state of mewar, which subsequently merged in the state of rajasthan and as such, for any transfer or disposing of the property, the concurrence and permission of the state government are mandatory. in the reply-affidavit, respondents have admitted that no such permission has been granted by the state government. under these circumstances, any agreement to transfer or a document creating a transfer of the property which was granted on 30-401948, cannot be said to be in accordance with law. if the institution feels paucity of funds for the smooth running of the educational functional, it may approach the state government, but at any rate, the land granted for the benefit of the students and for educational purposes, cannot be put to any different use. by allowing the different use of the land, it would amount to denial of right to enjoy the property for the purpose other than the purpose for which it was granted. from the site map annx. r/3/7, it is clear that the site proposed to be transferred by let out or lease out situate adjacent to the existing library building of the institution, which is generally used by the students for academic purpose and if the site adjacent to the library is put to commercial use, it may create problems and disturbance to the students.17. thus, from the aforesaid factual matrix and the legal position, it is clear that(i) the respondent vidhyapeeth has been granted the land for educational development of the inmates of the area with the stipulation that it shall not be put to anypurpose other than educational one; (ii) the memorandum of association and rulesdoes not authorise the respondent vidhyapeeth to transfer, alienate, let out or leaseout any part of the land or building for commercial purpose under the garb of paucity of funds for the smooth running of the institution; (iii) there is not even an iota of evidence or any assertion by the respondents that despite grant-in-aid by the state government, u.g.c. and other agencies, the funds fall short for smooth running of the institution, as such even presuming inadequacy of funds, such transfer, alienation, let out or lease out cannot be permitted without prior permission of the state governmentto use the said land or building for any purpose other than educational one; (iv) the state government got the power in legacy after merger of the erstwhile state of mewar and as such the state government or its functionaries are having ultimate power of control, supervision, inquiry etc. to safe-guard the interest of the students; and (v) therehad been meetings between the parties and ultimately an undertaking was given by the respondents authorities for using the land and the property only for the upliftment of the education and restoring the same for educational purposes after expire of the term of the agreement already arrived at between the respondent vidhyapeeth and the commercial establishments etc.18. in view of the above, it is expedient to direct the respondent district collector, udaipur to conduct a detailed inquiry with regard to the land or building of the respondent vidhyapeeth already allowed for commercial use for making good their regularities or illegalities, if any, resulted by allowing the land or building in question for the purpose other than educational one and submit the same to the state government within four months. the respondent vidhyapeeth and its authorities are restrained to alienate, transfer, let out or lease out any part of the land or building in question without prior permission of the respondent state. while considering the permission, if any, sought by the respondent vidhyapeeth for change of user of the land or building in question, the state shall keep in view such report submitted by the collector and the paramount interest of the students vis-a-vis the financial hardship.the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.