BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01/11/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.9191 of 2011 Noorul Islam Centre for Higher Education (Deemed University), Represented by its Chairman, A.P.Majeed Khan, Kumarakovil, Thuckalay, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The University Grants Commissioner, Bahadur Shah Jaffar Marg, New Delhi 110 002. 2.The Association of Indian Universities, AIU House, No.16, Comrade Indrajith Guptha Marg (Kotla Marg), New Delhi-110 002. 3.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Higher Education, Chennai. 4.The Director of Technical Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai. ... Respondents Prayer Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Meet.Mem/2010/412, dated 22.09.2010 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to induct the petitioner university as its member. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan ^For 1st Respondent ... Mr.K.Vijay Karthikeyan For 2nd Respondent ... Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan For Respondents 3&4 ... Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader. :ORDER
The petitioner is a deemed university declared under Section 3 of the
University Grants Commission Act as deemed to be University. Curiously in this
writ petition, the petitioner does not seek for any direction in respect of any
regulation or orders passed by the University Grants Commission. On the
contrary, they want to become a member of the second respondent Association.
Therefore, they filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 22.09.2010
issued by the second respondent. By the impugned order, the second respondent
informed the petitioner institution that their membership for any university is
upon only after their standing for five years and it must be registered as
university under Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act.
Therefore, the petitioner society was informed that they do not meet the
criteria for granting provisional membership of the said association. However,
it was informed that the students of the petitioner university are entitled to
participate in the Sports and Youth Affairs activities organised by the
association for which they will have to conduct concerned under Secretary for
sports in this regard.
2.It is not clear as to how the writ petition is maintainable challenging
the order of a society which informed the petitioner that their membership
requirement is of five years standing of a university under Section 2(f) of the
University Grants Commission Act. The petitioner followed by the impugned order
sent a representation dated 22.07.2011. In that representation, they have
claimed that it was recognised by the University Grants Commission as university
under Section 2(f) on 27.07.2006 and therefore, they comply with the requirement
stipulated by the second respondent. If they are able to satisfy the second
respondent with reference to their qualification for being membership, there is
no difficulty but whether the second respondent is amenable to writ jurisdiction
of this Court, the issue to be considered in this writ petition.
3.When the matter came up on 17.08.2011, notice of motion was ordered. On
notice from this Court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit,
dated 01.10.2011. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the second
respondent is only a registered society and in the 84th Annual General Meeting
held by the AIU, the five years stipulation has been made for its membership. It
is also stated that the said association is a voluntary body and comprising of
vice chancellors of various universities and no Government control over the
functioning of the management of the association. It is managed by a standing
committee under the supervision of the general body. Sometimes, it may also be
given grant by the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department for
specific projects but on that score it cannot be held that there was a
Government control over the affairs of the association. It is also stated that
it is not State with the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The typed
set filed along with the counter affidavit, the minutes of the 84th Annual
General Meeting dated 12.11.2009 is produced and also a copy of the rules of the
society forming the association is also produced.
4.The petitioner has not made out any statutory right to insist on a
membership on a private society like the second respondent. Inasmuch as the
second respondent is neither the State nor the instrumentality of the State so
as to come within the purview of the Article 12 of the Constitution and in the
absence of any legal or enforceable right on the part of the petitioner
university, the writ petition is misconceived and is clearly not maintainable.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
sms
To
1.The University Grants Commissioner,
Bahadur Shah Jaffar Marg,
New Delhi 110 002.
Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Higher Education,
Chennai.
3.The Director of Technical Education,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Directorate of Technical Education,
Chennai.
