BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:05/09/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.4719 of 2005 and WPMP.No.5058 of 2005 Yadava College, Rep.by the Committee, C.Narayanan, Thirupalai, Madurai. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Education Department, St.George Fort, Chennai. 2.The Member Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, 116-A, E.V.R. Periyar High road, Chennai-600 082. 3.The Principal and Secretary, The American College, Goripalayam, Madurai-2. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in his letter No.D.O.Lr.No.12468/T1-2/2004 dated 26-05-2005 (wrongly mentioned as 26-05-2004) and quash the same consequently direct the second respondent to select the petitioner college for center of excellence in volley ball. !For Petitioner ...Mr.D.Rajendiran ^For Respondents...Mr.K.A.Thirumalaiappan, Additional Govt.Pleader for R1. ...Mr.P.Srinivas for R2. ...Mr.P.Chandra Bose for R3. :ORDER
The petitioner is an aided College in the city of Madurai. When the
second respondent, Sports Development Authority decided to develop Sports Hostel
of Excellence they have chosen for locating for each sport with reference to
a particular college, so that the students can be trained in that particular
sport.
2.In respect of Volley Ball, it was felt that since southern districts are
doing well in that game, the center should be located at any one of the
colleges in Madurai city, being the center for southern districts. The
petitioner as well as the third respondent College wanted the second respondent
to locate the centre in their premises. It was found by the second respondent
Sports Development Authority that both institutions are having sufficient play
field facilities.
3.But however when he came for actual choosing of the college, preference
was given to the third respondent. The second respondent filed a counter
affidavit filed dated 30-06-2005. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is
averred as follows:
“6.I submit to state that with reference to para 7, both American College,
Madurai and Yadava College, Madurai have sent in their letters confirming the
facilities that they will extent to the players. With reference to para 8,
having received letters from both Yadava College, Madurai and American College,
Madurai the Committee of Senior Volleyball Coaches and administrators met on 10-
05-2005 at 3.00 PM. At that meeting, it was decided considering that both the
colleges competing with one another to provide equal facilities, it would be
best to choose the college from the players’ point of view. It was then decided
in favour of the American College as the credit system is in vogue in the
American College. By virtue of the credit system, all students do not have to
attend all subjects being thought in a semester and can pick and choose subjects
of their interest so as to have maximum total number of credits in order to get
a degree. This would mean that during a peak season of a player, he would be
able to choose and pick less number of subjects and in an off-season, he would
be able to choose more number of subjects. Therefore, the needs of the player
as well as the academic orientation is completely met. It was a well thought
out decision considering that several sports persons in the Sports Hostel of
Excellence, Chennai have had major difficulties with regard to keeping pace with
Academics. Also, the Principal American College, Madurai assured the Member-
Secretary, SDAT that maximum flexibility in terms of academics would be provided
to the Champion volleyball players in order to enable them to both play the game
and the same time secure success in the degree. Also an additional factor that
played a major role was the actual distance between the American College and the
Stadium which would be the nerve centre of the training was only 1.9 kms whereas
the actual distance of the Yadava College from the Stadium was 6.2 kms. It was
visualized that there would be difficulties for traveling by the students.”
4.Therefore for the above reasons the choice went in favour of the third
respondent College. The grievance of the petitioner is that the College was
given a long rope and also given a promise that the centre will be located in
their College. A reference is also made to the correspondence between them and
the second respondent in locating the centre.
5.Ultimately when the centre was located in the third respondent College,
the petitioner aggrieved by the letter dated 08-06-2005 filed the present writ
petition.
6. The writ petition was admitted on 08-06-2005 and an interim stay of
the order dated 26.05.2005 was granted which was also extended from time to
time.
7.The third respondent filed a counter affidavit justifying the location
in their campus by their counter affidavit dated 18-11-2005. In any event, the
second respondent, Sports Development Authority is an independent authroity
established by the State Government. It is open to them to locate the centre in
a place wanted by them based on the technical advice received by them.
8.In the present case, the second respondent assigned three reasons for
locating the centre at the third respondent college. Firstly, the third
respondent College is an Autonomous College so that the students can have
courses in a flexible manner; secondly, it is also found that from the College
to the Academy, it is only 1.5 kms whereas from the petitioner’s College it is
more than 6kms. Therefore, the players will reach the stadium without any
transport difficulties. Thirdly, the offer from the third respondent College
was more attractive in asmuch as the Principal gave full guarantee to relieve
the students wherever necessary.
9.Under these circumstances, this Court is unable to interfere with the
decision of the second respondent which is purely non justifiable and not
amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected
WPMP.No.5058 of 2005 is also dismissed.
gsr
TO
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Education Department,
St.George Fort,Chennai.
2.The Member Secretary,
Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu,
116-A, E.V.R. Periyar High road,
Chennai-600 082.
3.The Principal and Secretary,
The American College,
Goripalayam, Madurai-2.