ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in selling shop Nos.3, 4 and 5 on the first floor of the commercial complex, Industrial
Estate, Shantinagar vide notification No.5/ ZM/JDM/97-98 dated 16-3-1998 for the industrial purpose as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also has sought for a further declaration that the action of the respondents in not allotting shop Nos.3, 4 and 5 in favour of the petitioner-Society for educational purposes as arbitrary and illegal and consequently directing the respondents to allot shop Nos.3, 4 and 5 on the first floor of the Commercial Complex, Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar, in favour of the petitioner for educational purposes.
2. In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and the objects of the Society are to establish educational institutions relating to general education, vocational education, professional education, research and development centres and also to set up educational institutions such as schools, junior colleges, degree colleges, law colleges, B.Bd. Colleges, and various other educational institutions. And for that purpose, the petitioner identified Sanathnagar Industrial Area as one of such places where junior and degree colleges could be started. For that purpose, petitioner approached the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. (in short ‘A.RI.I.C.’) for allotment of the land and building and the respondents allotted room numbers 6 to 10 of the first floor of the commercial complex situated in Sanathnagar Industrial Estate for establishing junior and degree colleges, in the month of April, 1994. An agreement was also entered into between the parties on 26-4-1994 in this behalf. It is further stated that room numbers 1 and 2 on the first floor were allotted to ‘BBC Systems and services’ in favour of Sri Karthikeya Industries and the owners of these industries were pleased to transfer the said rooms in favour of the petitioner with the approval of the respondents, by duly converting the rooms from industrial activity to educational activity. Likewise room numbers 8 and 9 on the ground
floor were initially allotted to Diamond Plastics Industries. But the owners of the said industries also transferred those two rooms in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated’ that the petitioner was also allotted about 2,500 Sq.feet plinth area of administrative block constructed by the respondents and in that, petitioner is running junior college on rental basis. It is also stated that the commercial complex has in all ten rooms in the ground floor and ten rooms in first floor. And the petitioner has occupied all the rooms in the first floor bearing room numbers 3, 4 and 5. As the things stood thus shop numbers 3, 4 and 5 were initially allotted in favour of Alpacks Industries and the said industry is not running any business activity in the said rooms and it ultimately defaulted in payment of dues to the respondents. In those circumstances, the petitioner requested the respondents to allot those shops in favour of the petitioner for educational purposes, for which the respondents expressed their inability. However, petitioner sent a cheque for Rs.24,000/- for allotment of the shops 3, 4 and 5. But the respondents have returned the same on the ground that the shops were allotted to Alpacks Industries. There is a vacant land adjacent to the commercial complex and the petitioner prayed for allotment of the same. But rejecling the case of the petitioner, the respondents have allotted nearly 440 Sq.mts of land to the Institute of Costs and Works Accounts, Hyderabad Chapter on 7-6-1997. Question ing the same, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in WP No.25S56of 1995. But the said writ petition was disposed of by observing that the respondents may consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with ‘law and guidelines’ for allotment of the remaining portion of the vacant land. Meanwhile, respondents have taken possession of the room numbers 3, 4 and 5 by evicting Alpax Industries. Petitioner again made a representation for allotment of these shops in favour of the petitioner. But his request was again negatived on the ground that the shops
allotted for the industrial purposes, cannot be allotted for educational purposes. Petitioner states that this is an untenable ground. The petitioner further avers that now the respondents have issued notification No.5/ZM/ JDM/97-98 dated 16-3-1998, published in Deccan Chronicle on 18-3-1998, proposing to auction the shops for industrial purposes. Vide item No.3(c), Industrial Estate Sanathnagar Commercial Complex was also included in the said notification. It is further stated that the respondents have permitted the petitioner-Society and ICWA College to be established in Industrial Estate Sanathnagar and the respondents cannot allot the part of the said complex for the industrial purposes at this stage, without considering the application filed by the petitioner for allotment. The petitioner further stated that the Society is willing to buy such shops on the basis of the prevailing market value as fixed by the respondents. The petitioner ultimately concluded that if the shops in question were auctioned, the petitioner would be put to great loss and hardship. It is further stated that the petitioner approached the respondents for participation in the auction, but the respondents are not permitting to do so on the ground that the activity of the petitioner-Society is not an industrial activity. The petitioner submits that if the shops 3, 4 and 5 were allotted to other persons for industrial purposes, the interest of the students would suffer. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the same contentions, submitted that the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to participate in the auction only on the ground that the petitioner is an educational institution is unsustainable. He further submitted that the stand taken by the respondents that the shops can be allotted only for industrial purposes, but not for educational purposes is illegal, since the respondents have already allotted number of shops in favour of the petitioner-Society for educational purposes and in these circumstances, the respondents should have permitted the petitioner to participate in the
auction proceedings. Therefore, the auction proceedings vide notification dated
16-3-1998 proposing to auction shop numbers 3, 4 and 5 are liable to be declared as illegal and arbitrary.
3. By filing a counter, the respondents denied the allegations made by the petitioner. They sated that even though shops were originally allotted to Smt. K. Varalakshmi, Diamond Plast Industries etc., but they were ultimately allotted in favour of the petitioner as per the request made by these persons and also the petitioner, by passing necessary orders. But it is to be seen that the allotment that was made in favour of the petitioner-Society was for specific purpose of “setting up of social welfare and commercial activity centre etc,” and whereas, the petitioner used those rooms as class rooms for running degree/junior college and thereby committed breach of condition No.14(A) of agreement of sale dated 26-4-1994 and in view of such breach of condition, the allotment of shop Nos.6 to 10 in the first floor made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled vide proceedings of the respondent dated 11-9-1995. Challenging the said cancellation, the petitioner has filed a suit in OS No.4032/1995 on the file of City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the said suit is pending. It is further stated that the portion of the administrative block measuring 226 Sq.mts was allotted in favour of the petitioner-Society on lease basis, tentatively on the monthly rent ofRs.5.171/- vide proceedings dated
17-11-1994. But the petitioner made alterations to the building without the written approval from the respondent-Corporation, thereby violated the clause No.2(d) of the lease deed and accordingly respondents issued notices dated 25-5-1995 and 10-7-1995 informing the allottee not to carry out the repairs. But the petitioner did not stop the work and in those circumstances, the allotment of a portion of administrative building was also cancelled on 11-9-1995. Being aggrieved by these cancellations, the
petitioner has filed another suit in OS No. 1143/ 1995 and the said suit is still pending. In those suits, there is an injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering with the possession of the petitioner-Society. Thus, the petitioner is continuing in shop Nos.6 to 10 in the first floor of the commercial complex situated in the Sanathnagar Industrial Estate and in the administrative building on the basis of the interim orders granted by the civil Court. Meanwhile, the petitioner-Society requested for allotment of shop Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the first floor of the commercial complex by sending cheque for Rs.24,000/-. But the respondents have returned it. Meanwhile, the respondents have also taken the possession of shop Nos.3, 4 and 5 from the previous allottee. Petitioner again made request for allotment, but the same is refused on the ground that the shops meant for commercial purposes cannot be allotted for educational purposes. The respondents also took a policy decision and accordingly circular No.282/DW/97 dated 13-12-1997 was issued stating that the shops/godowns constructed in various commercial complexes/housing complexes/shopping complexes shall be disposed of by auction. However, the rights of the Terrace were reserved with the respondents and accordingly a notification was published in the Deccan Chronicle on 18-3-1998. The further allegation of the petitioner that they are not allowed to participate in the auction is not correct. The respondents have stated that in fact petitioner was given a letter dated 23-3-1998 stating that they may be allowed to participate in the auction. But the petitioner-Society has not enclosed demand draft for Rs.42,300/-towards the five per cent of the upset price of the shops, as earnest money deposit, as per the tender condition. The petitioner has also not participated in the said auction. The writ petition filed by the petitioner in WP No.25883 of 1995 against the respondents and also against M/s. Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India has been
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27-3-1996. The respondents submits that these facts clearly would indicate that the petitioner is a habitual litigant and accordingly stated that there are no merits in the” writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The Counsel appearing for the respondents relying on this counter, strenuously contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and absolutely there is no law or equity in favour of the petitioner to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. From the counter it is clear that the allegation made by the petitioner that petitioner is not being allowed to participate in the auction is not correct. The petitioner has not paid Rs.42.300/- towards the five per cent of the upset price of the shops as earnest money deposit as per the tender condition and accordingly, the petitioner has not participated in the said auction. From this it follows that the allegation made in the writ petition that the petitioner is not being allowed to participate in the auction is totally incorrect.
5. The next aspect that requires to be considered is whether the petitioner has any right to use the shops allotted for commercial purpose, for educational purposes. It is not in dispute, nor it can be disputed that the shops in question were constructed purely for commercial activities and in fact from the counter it is clear that shops were allotted in favour of the petitioner for setting up of social welfare and commercial activity centre and not for educational institutions and when the petitioner started using the rooms for educational purposes, the allotment has been cancelled and accordingly petitioner has filed a suit in OS No.4032 of 1995 on the file of City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The counter has clearly stated that due to the attempt on the part of the petitioner to alter the building allotted on lease in the
administrative block, the said allotment has been cancelled and the petitioner has filed a separate suit in OS No.1143 of 1995.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that running educational institutions also is a commercial activity. Therefore, the petitioner-Society is entitled for allotment. He further submitted that having allotted some rooms for educational purposes, the respondents cannot refuse to allot he disputed shops in favour of the petitioner. He stated that the colleges run by the petitioner is recognised and affiliation is given by the Osmania University etc. But in my opinion, the short point for my consideration would be, whether the shops in question allotted for educational purpose would be a commercial activity. As stated in the counter, it is clear that the respondents have allotted the shops in favour of the petitioner only for ‘social welfare and commercial activity centre’ and not for running a junior college or a degree college. Imparting education in Indian tradition is a pious purpose. Normally, the education trusts having the laudable object of imparting education, start the educational institutions without expecting any profit. But of jate, there is a tendency to commercialise the education and thereby, even the educational standards have come down in India. It is a common knowledge that by prescribing donations, capitation fee and some other fee or exorbitant library fee, etc., the education has been made beyond the reach of an ordinary common man by such institutions, which consider the educational activity’ is a commercial activity’ and in fact it is not. Imparting education cannot be equated to commercial or industrial activity in the strict sense of the term, though some institutions can be treated as industry for the purpose of protecting the interests of the employees under the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, if a building or room is allotted for a particular purpose, it shall be used for that particular purpose only, so that
the purpose and object of the scheme under which the building is constructed would be fulfilled. Moreover, I find that in Hyderabad, there are so many colleges running on the terrace of the commercial shops. What kind of educational atmosphere can be assured by such institutions to the students ? Out of necessity, some students may join such colleges, but one has to see the real purpose of education is not defeated. In my humble opinion, the school or college must be housed in such an atmosphere, where there is less distraction to the students, so that they devote themselves to the studies to achieve the academic excellence. In this view of the matter, it is difficult for this Court to accept the case of the petitioner that educational activity is a commercial activity. If the petitioner had an idea to use the shops now put for auction, for commercial activities, it was open to the petitioner to participate in such auction. But from the counter it is clear that the petitioner did not make the initial deposit as per the tender conditions and petitioner also did not participate in the auction. In this view of the matter, I do not think that the action of the respondents can be found fault with on any ground or in terms of any law. Even the observation of this Court in \VP No.25883/1995 does not help the petitioner, since in that writ petition, this Court observed that the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be considered only in accordance with law and guidelines and no law enabling the petitioner for the allotment of shops, is brought to my notice, for allotment of the shops meant for commercial activity for educational activity.
7. For the above reasons, I do not find any merits in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed,
but in the circumstances without costs.