Writ Petition No.11497/2011
1
18.07.2011
Shri Suyash Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
This writ petition has been filed Pro Bono Publico by an Advocate.
The grievance as set forth in the writ petition is that the
respondent no.2 by a notification dated 4.7.2011 has increased the fee of
the students of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th years of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and
Animal Husbandry which is arbitrary and is unjust.
By the aforesaid notification, the tuition fee for free seats has been
enhanced from Rs.14,000/- to Rs.18,000/-. Similarly, in respect of seat
of N.R.I. quota, the fees has been enhanced from 3000 dollars to 3500
dollars.
The petitioner has alleged that the action of the respondents in
enhancing the fees in the mid session is arbitrary and would cause
immense financial crises to the students and their parents.
In the aforesaid factual background the petitioner has approached
this court.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
In People’s Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Union of
India, (1982)3 SCC 235, the Supreme Court while dealing with the scope
and ambit of public interest litigation has held as follows :
“Public Interest litigation is brought before the Court
not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one
individual against another as happens in the case of
ordinary litigation, but it is intended to promote and
vindicate public interest which demands that
violations of constitutional or legal rights of large
numbers of people who are poor, ignorant or in a
socially or economically disadvantaged position
should not go unnoticed and unredressed”.
Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Sheela Barse
Vs. Union of India, (1998)4 SCC 226.
In Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India, (1992)4 SCC 605, the
Supreme Court while dealing with the public interest litigation in which
challenge was made to proceedings of removal of a Supreme Court Judge
held that ordinarily it is person aggrieved and directly affected who must
Writ Petition No.11497/2011
2
seek the relief himself unless disabled from doing so for a good reason
which permits someone else to seek the relief on his behalf.
While summarizing the principles evolved by the Supreme Court
with regard to maintainability of the public interest litigations, in
Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee Vs. C.K.Rajan,
(2003) 7 SCC 546, the Supreme Court held that a writ petition can be
entertained as public interest litigation by any interested person in the
welfare of the people who is in a disadvantageous position and not in a
position to knock the doors of the Court.
Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of
Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010(3) SCC 402.
From the perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, we
do not find that it contains averments that either guardian or students
are unable to approach this Court on account of some disability. There is
no element of public interest involved in the instant writ petition.
For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the writ petition at
the instance of the petitioner who is an Advocate, with regard to increase
in the tuition fee of B.V.Sc. and A.H. course cannot be entertained as
Public Interest Litigation.
Accordingly the same is dismissed in limine.
(S.R.Alam) (Alok Aradhe)
Chief Justice Judge
HS