N.Shanmugavel v. The Director of Collegiate Education & Ors.

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 17/8/2011C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMARWrit Petition (MD)No.9232 of 2011N.Shanmugavel... PetitionerVs.1.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.2.S.Vellaichamy Nadar College(Autonomous) Madurai, Rep. By its Secretary. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 1strespondent herein to initiate action on the representation of thepetitioner dated 26.06.2011 in accordance with law within a reasonabletime.For Petitioner : Mr.V.JanakiramuluFor Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi, Special Government PleaderORDERMandamus is sought for in this writ petition by a Member of NadarMahajana Sangam, for a direction to the Director of Collegiate Education,Chennai, to initiate action on the basis of the representation of thepetitioner, dated 26.06.2011, cannot be granted for the following reasons.2.In supporting affidavit, the petitioner has contended that beinga member of the Sangam, he has got every right to question and see that theManagement and Administration of the College are effectively performed inthe best interest of the institution, student and teacher community. Hehas further submitted that though there were several complaints from theparents of the second respondent College that capitation fee has beencollected over and above the prescribed fee and though the Joint Directorof Collegiate Education, Madurai, has also sent Special Audit Team to thesecond respondent college on 13.12.2008 and 14.12.2008, and found that anunauthorized amount of Rs.19,88,000/- has been collected from the studentsduring the academic years 2004, 2005 and 2006, no action has been taken bythe first respondent. He has further contended that even though based onan audit inspection and on admission of the Secretary to the secondrespondent College, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai,has passed an order, directing the second respondent to remit the saidunauthorised amount to the Government account and though the appealpreferred by the second respondent against that order has been dismissed bythe Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, the first respondent herein,on 09.03.2009, the second respondent has not chosen to remit the excesscapitation fee collected. In supporting affidavit, the petitioner has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2further contended that though the Director of Collegiate Education,Chennai, the first respondent herein has issued a show cause notice inR.C.No.41336/G2/08, dated 15.10.2009, to show cause as to why action shouldnot be initiated against the College for violation of the statutoryprovisions and though the petitioner has made a detailed representation,dated 26.06.2011, to the first respondent to take appropriate action forviolation of Sections 28(1) & (2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Act, 1976 and Section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu EducationalInstitution (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992, thefirst respondent has failed to exercise his duties and take appropriateaction for the reasons best known to him and in such circumstances, thepetitioner has sought for a mandamus, as stated supra.3.Except two sentences in supporting affidavit, he, being a memberof the sangam, has every right to question and see that the management andadministration of the college are effectively performed in the bestinterest of the institution, student and teachers community, rest of theaverments pertain only to a complaint of collection of capitation fee andaction taken by the educational authorities directing the second respondentto remit the amount, and no where in the supporting affidavit, thepetitioner has furnished any particulars as to how and what manner hispersonal right has been infringed. The petitioner has not substantiatedwith any materials before this Court, as to what is legal wrong orinjuries, violation of any statutory or legal or personal right under anyof the provisions of law, to fall under the expression "an aggrievedperson". Courts have consistently held that unless a person is personallyaffected by an impugned order or action or inaction of the respondents, orhis fundamental or other rights directly or substantially is invaded orinfringed, he has no right to invoke extraordinary remedy under Article 226of the Constitution of India. Supporting affidavit clearly shows that itis an attempt to expose the cause of the parents of the second respondentCollege that capitation fee has been collected over and above theprescribed fee. The writ petition is styled more like a public interestwrit petition, than a private interest litigation.4.In this context, it is useful to refer to few decisions of theSupreme Court, as to who is said to be an aggrieved person:(i) In Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 1739, theApex Court has held as follows:"Para-2: Generally speaking, a person shall have nolocus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personallyaffected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights haveneither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there anyimminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquiredinterests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. Therelief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on theexistence of a right in favour of the person invoking thejurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in caseswhere the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quowarranto or filed in public interest. Fit is a matter ofprudence, that the Court confines the exercise of writjurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries causedto a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or inquiry at theinstance of third party where there is an effective legal adorganization which can take care of such cases. Even in casesfiled in public interest, the Court can exercise the writjurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it isshown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden isthreatened and such person or determined class of persons is, byreason of poverty, helplessness, or disability or socially oreconomically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Courtfor relief." (ii) Yet another decision considered by the Apex Court in NadarMahajana Sangam's case is State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Dev and another,AIR 1964 SC 685, where the Supreme Court has held as follows:"But though the jurisdiction of the High Court underArt.226 is wide in that sense, the concluding words of the articleclearly indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order canbe issued in favour of a party, it must be established that theparty has a right and the said right is legally invaded orthreatened. The existence of a right is thus the foundation of apetition under Article 226". (iii) In Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs.Government of AndhraPradesh, 1966 (2) MLJ (SC) 87: 1966 (2) An.W.R.(SC) 87: AIR 1966 SC 828(vide para.8) the Supreme Court has held as follows:"The right that can be enforced under Article 226 also shallordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitionerhimself though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpusor quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified." (iv) Finally, after considering the legal principles, the DivisionBench of this Court in Nadar Mahajana Sangam, Madurai through its GeneralSecretary (For and on behalf of Shareholders of Tamilnadu mercantile bankLtd.) Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Department of BankingOperation Development Centre-I, World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Bombayand others reported in 2006 (1) CTC 776, at Paragraph No.8, has held asfollows:" The writ petition filed by the appellant cannot haveany personal grievance in the matter and at best, only itsmembers can have any grievance. It is well settled thatordinarily a writ petition can only be filed by someone who ispersonally aggrieved. The powers under Article 226 of theConstitution of India should be sparingly used and only in thoseclear cases where the rights of a person have been seriouslyinfringed and he has no other adequate and specific remedyavailable to him. The relief under Article 226 of theConstitution of India is based on the existence of a right infavour of a person invoking the writ jurisdiction." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

45.On the pleadings and materials on record, this Court is of theconsidered view that the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrievedperson and seek for any mandamus. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.No costs.SDASST REGISTRAR ( CO )/TRUE COPY/SUB ASST REGISTRAR gcgToThe Director of Collegiate Education,College Road,Chennai - 600 006.1CC TO MR. V. JANAKIRAMULU, ADVOCATE,S R: 28051:1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 28004:DM:2011:AUGUST:29::Order in W.P.(MD)No.9232 of 201117/08/20114P:4C::