Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14726/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14726 of 2011
=========================================================
HARISHKUMAR
RAMESHBHAI PARMAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THRO THE SECRETARY & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KH BAXI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR AJ DESAI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1.
None for
Respondent(s) : 2 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 03/10/2011
ORAL ORDER
1. This
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed, with the following prayers :
“This
Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus under
article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, writ of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, directions or order in the nature of
mandamus and be pleased to further:
(a) Admit
the petition;
(b) Be
pleased to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take immediate action
against the respondent No.4 in accordance with law;
(c) Be
pleased to direct the respondents to take immediate action against
the respondent No.4 in accordance with law; by way of an interim
relief;
(d) Grant
such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in
the interest of justice.”
2. The
petitioner is purported to be a resident of Village Sargasan where,
as stated in the petition, he is doing his “business”.
3. The
petition pertains to several alleged irregularities in the School run
by respondent No.4- Trust, that have been detailed in the
memorandum of the petition. The allegations levelled by the
petitioner are that the School run by respondent No.4-Trust is
being run illegally and in contravention of the provisions of law
and rules. It is stated that the petitioner has acquired certain
information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and has made
several complaints to the concerned authorities regarding the
irregularities in the School. However, in spite of the same, the
authorities are not taking any action.
4. Mr.K.H.Baxi,
learned advocate for the petitioner has reiterated that several
complaints have been made to respondents Nos.1 to 3 by the petitioner
regarding the irregularities committed by respondent No.4 in the
running of the School. It is further submitted that certain false
submissions have been made on affidavit and offence committed by
respondent No.4 – Trust, which have been brought to the notice
of respondent Nos.1 to 3, who have not taken any action thereupon,
therefore, directions may be issued to them to take action against
respondent No.4.
5. Having
heard the learned advocate for the petitioner at length and having
perused the contents of the petition, it is clear therefrom that the
petition has not been filed in the public interest, and neither is
the petitioner a “person aggrieved”, so as to maintain a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
petitioner can be termed to be a complainant, at the most, but is not
personally concerned with the School in question, or with respondent
No.4.
6. No
legal, fundamental or indefeasible right of the petitioner appears to
have been violated and it is not so stated in the petition, as well.
In this view of the matter, as the petitioner is not a “person
aggrieved” by any action of respondent No.4-Trust or the
concerned authorities, this Court is not inclined to exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly,
the petition is rejected.
The
rejection of the petition will, however, not debar the petitioner
from taking recourse to any other legally permissible remedy
available to him.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
~gaurav~
Top