Kerala Private College Managements Association v. Mahatma Gandhi University

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 12TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 15416 OF 2011** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **KERALA PRIVATE COLLEGE MANAGEMENTS ASSO. ASSOCIATION, (REG. N0O. TR 12/1960), REPRESENTED, BY ITS SECRETARY, B.V.M HOLY CROSS COLLEGE,, CHERPUNKAL - 686 584, REP. BY DR. MATHEW, MALEPARAMBIL, SECRETARY.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,, KOTTAYAM -686 560.** **2 VICE CHANCELLOR MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,, KOTTAYAM - 686 560. 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR SR. SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -2- W.P.(C). No. 15416 of 2011 ## P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ============================================================== ## W.P.(C) No. 15416 of 2011 -B =================================================================================== Dated this the 4[th] day of October, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with following prayers: "(i) issue a writ of mandamus or a direction order or injunction restraining the respondents from enforcing or giving effect to the Ext.P2 regulations; (ii) declare that Ext.P2 is illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional and hence void, (iii)issue such other writ ,order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in the light of the judgment of this Court in Self Financing Arts and -3- W.P.(C). No. 15416 of 2011 Science College Management Welfare Association v. Mahatma Gandi University [ 2016 (3) KLT 675]. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this writ petition is maintainable by an association when the challenge is with regard to violation of statutory provisions. 4. I perused the judgment in Self Financing Arts and Science College Management Welfare Association (supra). It would be better to extract paragraphs 5 to 9 here: “5. In Pournamy Mohan v. State of Kerala 2012 (1) KLT 686 a learned Judge of this Court deprecated the practise of filing writ petitions by associations and federations of the Managements of Colleges without the individual Managements figuring as petitioners. In the said decision it was held that, the makers of the Constitution have advisedly made a clear distinction between a fundamental right available to any person -4- W.P.(C). No. 15416 of 2011 and those guaranteed to all citizens. Part III of the Constitution of India deals with the same and all citizens are persons, even though all persons are not citizens. A registered federation might be a person entitled to file a writ petition and is not a citizen who alone can complain of violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 6. Admittedly, the present writ petition is not one filed in public interest. Even in cases filed in public interest, this Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that, the person or a determined class of persons who suffered legal injury or legal wrong is, by reason or poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantages position, unable to approach this Court for relief. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the members of the petitioner Association are prevented by any such reason to approach this Court under -5- W.P.(C). No. 15416 of 2011 Article 226 of the Constitution seeking appropriate relief. 7. In the instant case, the grievance highlighted in the writ petition is that, if repeated allotments of students are insisted as per Ext.P2 schedule for the Centralised Allotment Process for Undergraduate Courses-2016 there will not be sufficient students in the self financing colleges, causing irreparable injury to the members of the petitioner Association. The petitioner Association contended that, the self financing colleges run by its members are not given any financial assistance from the respondents and as such, the insistence of Centralised Allotment Process at the whims and fancy of the respondents is illegal. The further contention in the Writ Petition that, in the absence of a Committee constituted under Section 73A of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, the Centralised Allotment Process conducted by the University is not binding on the private self -6- W.P.(C). No. 15416 of 2011 financing colleges is no more available to the Managements, in view of Annexure.R1(b) Government order dated 5.4.2016 constituting such a Committee; Annexure.R1(c) Government letter dated 26.4.2016 implementing the said decision in the Universities in the State; and Annexure.R1(d) order dated 12.5.2015 of the 1st respondent University introducing Centralised Allotment Process, by implementing the recommendation of the said Committee. 8. In our view, the petitioner Association can have no grievance in the matter. At best, the members of the petitioner Association could have a grievance in the matter. If the members of the petitioner Association have any such grievance, it is for them to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking appropriate relief, after paying the requisite court fee. 9. In the result, we hold that the petitioner -7- W.P.(C). No. 15416 of 2011 Association has no locus standi to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P2 schedule for the Centralised Allotment Process for Undergraduate Courses-2016 and seeking consequential direction allowing the members of the petitioner Association to make admission to the seats, over and above the seats allotted in the 1st and 2nd allotment as per Ext.P2 schedule.” After going through the above-mentioned Division Bench judgment, according to me, the writ petition is not sustainable at the instance of an association. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ## P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE das -8- W.P.(C). No. 15416 of 2011 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15416/2011** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.4.2011 Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGULATIONS BY UNIVERSITY FROM 2011-2012 DATED NIL Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MEMORANDUM DT. 21.4.2011**