JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.K. Yog, J.—At the outset learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties agreed that the writ petition, which gives rise to the present special appeal, while deciding Special Appeal, may also be disposed of, if required. 2. Admitted facts of the case, necessary to decide the dispute between the parties, are being recapitulated, in brief, hereinafter. 3. JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.K. Yog, J.—At the outset learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties agreed that the writ petition, which gives rise to the present special appeal, while deciding Special Appeal, may also be disposed of, if required. 2. Admitted facts of the case, necessary to decide the dispute between the parties, are being recapitulated, in brief, hereinafter. 3. ‘Shri Nehru Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Alamganj, Jaunpur’ called ‘the School’ is a recognized institution imparting education upto High School level as contemplated under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (as amended up to date); petitioner-Appellant is ex-Manager of the School who had made complaints regarding illegal and fraudulent appointments in the School by one Shailendra Pratap Singh (Manager of the Committee of Management of the School/Respondent No. 5), copy of one of such complaint dated 23-7-1998/Annexure-1 to the writ petition; somewhat 33 persons were found to have been appointed as Teacher/Non-Teaching employees without sanctioned posts being available and salary with respect to those illegal appointments were drawn on the basis of fabricated documents and by forging documents including ‘order of prior approval of DIOS’; taking cognizance of the complaint/s made by the Appellant an enquiry was conducted; in the enquiry held by the Joint-Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, charges levelled in the complaint were found correct and he submitted report dated 30-10-1998 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition); DIOS also submitted report dated 13-1-1999 (Annexure-3 and 4 to the writ petition) holding that there was manipulation in the pay-bills and pay-register; huge amount from ‘Salary-Account’ was withdrawn with respect to such ‘Farzi teachers’; the State Government took cognizance of these reports/material and the Additional Director of Education on enquiry found truth in complaint/s; Respondent No. 5 filed writ petition No. 47278 of 1999 which was disposed on 21-1-2000 with direction to D.E. to hold enquiry; Director of Education, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and Respondent No. 5, finally gave enquiry report on 30-3-2000 and found Shailendra Pratap Singh (Manager, Committee of Management of the School) guilty of serious financial irregularities, forgery and manipulation of papers/record and proposed action of appointment of ‘Authorised Controller’ as contemplated, under Section 16-D, U.P. Intermediate Education Act (Annexure-9 to the petition); Director of Education vide order dated 23-11-2000 directed Joint Director of Education to proceed and send notice to Respondent No. 5 under Section 16-D, U.P. Intermediate Education Act (Annexure-10 to the petition), Additional Director of Education issued notice under Section 16-D(2) of the said Act to Respondent No. 5 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition); Shailendra Pratap Singh, Manager of Respondent No. 5 exerted political pressure upon Principal Secretary of the concerned Department of the State of U.P. as a consequence of which the Principal Secretary, Education passed order dated 25-5-2001 directing Director of Education not to take steps for appointment of ‘Authorised Controller’ in place of Committee of Management of the School (Annexure-13 to the petition). 4. Vide para-23 of the writ petition, it is specifically pleaded that order of Director of Education for appointing ‘Authorised Controller’ was got forestalled/interfered with under ‘political pressure’; the petitioner, on the above pleading, claimed ‘writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to take immediate action against Committee of Management/Respondent No. 5 under the provisions of Intermediate Education Act’ and further ‘writ, order or direction not to permit the Respondent No. 5 to manage the affairs of the institution’. 5. Parties had exchanged pleadings by filing affidavits. 6. When writ petition was taken up for hearing, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Respondent that the petitioner has claimed no relief of issuing writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 25-5-2001/Annexure-13 to the petition and, therefore, Court cannot grant effective relief, in view of the prayer made in the writ petition. 7. The petitioner, without delay, filed an amendment application which was rejected by the learned Single Judge on 29-11-2005 precisely on the ground that the petitioner, who had filed copy of the said order and had ‘knowledge’ of it, did not claim relief for its quashing. 8. Another preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Respondents was on the ground of ‘locus standi’ of the petitioner to file the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner as Ex-Manager of the School had no right to meddle with the functioning of the School and that the present writ petition could not be treated ‘public interest litigation’. 9. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition as not-maintainable—(a) First, writ petition could not be entertained as ‘public interest litigation’ because the petitioner was not ‘Aggrieved person’ by virtue of being Ex Manager of the School or the Member of the Society and (b) the petitioner has failed to claim relief of ‘certiorari’ to quash order dated 25-5-2001/Annexure-13 to the petition. 10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed present intra-Court Special Appeal against the aforementioned order of the learned Single Judge specifically urging Ground No. 8 contending that amendment application was wrongly rejected. 11. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that amendment application was wrongly rejected. It is argued, that Amendment sought ought to have been allowed. 12. 10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed present intra-Court Special Appeal against the aforementioned order of the learned Single Judge specifically urging Ground No. 8 contending that amendment application was wrongly rejected. 11. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that amendment application was wrongly rejected. It is argued, that Amendment sought ought to have been allowed. 12. Order rejecting amendment application reads : “Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J. After hearing Counsel for the parties and after exchange of affidavits between the parties and when the matter was heard by this Court as the writ petition was filed only for claiming the relief of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to take immediate action against the respondent No. 6 and commanding the respondent not to permit the respondent to perform the management of the Institution. It is admitted to the petitioner that he has not submitted any application before the authority. It is well settled that mandamus cannot be issued unless and until there is a request. The case was heard on 29-11-2005 and it was ordered to be taken as unlisted today. Now the application for amendment for quashing the order dated 25-5-2001 passed by the respondent No. 1 by an order dated 29-12-2004. An objection is taken on behalf of Sri Anil Bhushan that the application for amendment is not maintainable. It is well settled that the amendment application cannot be allowed but there must be some reasonable explanation and it should be proved before this Court while filing the writ petition that the petitioner was not in the knowledge of the said order. In view of this aspect amendment application is liable to be dismissed as there is nothing to prove that the petitioner was not in the knowledge of the orders dated 25-5-2001 and 29-12-2004. In view of the aforesaid, the amendment application is dismissed. Date 29-11-2005" 13. Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to para-2 of the affidavit of Devi Prasad Mishra (filed in support of the said application) which reads : “2. In view of the aforesaid, the amendment application is dismissed. Date 29-11-2005" 13. Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to para-2 of the affidavit of Devi Prasad Mishra (filed in support of the said application) which reads : “2. That the petitioner in the body of the writ petition has stated that the Principal Secretary Education (Respondent No. 1), under political influence stopped the proposed action against the Manager of the Institution is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction but at the time of the drafting of the writ petition due to the inadvertence mistake following prayer has not been made in the writ petition although the petitioner has already stated the aforesaid facts, in the body of the writ petition. (italicised to lay emphasis) “(e) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 25-5-2001 passed by Respondent No.1 (Annexure 13) to this writ petition." 14. On reading the above-quoted order of the learned Single Judge, it is evident, that amendment was refused on the ground that the petitioner inspite of knowledge of the order, did not seek the relief to challenge the said order at that stage expeditiously. 15. The learned Single Judge, with respect, apparently failed to notice and ignored the pleadings/explanation furnished by the petitioner, viz. requisite prayer for seeking writ of ‘certiorari’ could not be incorporated due to inadvertence and/or oversight. 16. ‘To err is human’. One cannot possibly find a person who has not erred. The question is whether such a mistake is ‘bona fide’ or ‘deliberate’ to manipulate unwanted gains. Said aspect has been completely overlooked while rejecting Amendment Application. 17. We, with utmost modesty at our command, find that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred and failed to act in furtherance of ‘ends of justice’ in rejecting amendment application on the ground that prayer to issue writ of ‘certiorari’ to quash the order dated 25-5-2001 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) was not specifically incorporated in the writ petition. 18. Learned Single Judge did not examine nor held that the writ petition did not contain requisite pleading or the omission to claim said prayer was ‘mala fide’ (and not ‘bona fide’). Para-23 of the petition reads : “23. 18. Learned Single Judge did not examine nor held that the writ petition did not contain requisite pleading or the omission to claim said prayer was ‘mala fide’ (and not ‘bona fide’). Para-23 of the petition reads : “23. That the respondent No. 1 under the political influence stopped the proposed action against the Manager of the institution is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction." 19. Above para shows, that requisite ‘pleading’- for claiming relief of Certiorari— were present on record. 20. The aforesaid pleadings clinch that the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 25-5-2001 (Annexure-13 to the petition) and that the relief of ‘certiorari’ was a mere bona fide omission and to allow specific relief in the matter was a mere formality by which Respondents were not prejudiced or taken by surprise. The learned Single Judge himself observed that amendment can be allowed at any stage. If that be so, the exigency of the situation in the facts and circumstances of the case required that the prayer to issue writ of ‘certiorari’ should have been allowed and not rejected on a too technical ground. 21. Afore-quoted order dated 29-11-2005 cannot be approved and it has to be ignored. In this view of the matter said order is set aside, amendment application stands allowed and petitioner is declared entitled to the relief to issue ‘Certiorari’ to quash order dated 25-5-2001 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition). 22. In the matter of Educational Institutions, one must keep in mind the ‘interest’ of the third party, the students and the same cannot be overlooked nor it should be ignored. 23. The Apex Court in Abhijit Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. (P) Ltd. and others, 1996(1) SCC 589 (Para 7) observed : “The arm of Courts is long enough to reach injustice wherever it is found, which should be dealt with appropriately.. “ Higher Courts have wide powers to meet different exigencies of the situation; it should forge ‘new tools’ for new situations and mould the relief as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of a case. 24. According to Latin Maxim- BONUS JUDEX SECUNDUM ACQUUM ET BONUM JUDICAT ET ACQUITATEM STRICTO JURI PARAEFERT-A Good Judge decides according to Justice and Equity in preference to strict Law. 25. 24. According to Latin Maxim- BONUS JUDEX SECUNDUM ACQUUM ET BONUM JUDICAT ET ACQUITATEM STRICTO JURI PARAEFERT-A Good Judge decides according to Justice and Equity in preference to strict Law. 25. Learned Single Judge was unduly swayed under impression that in no case ‘writ of mandamus’ can be issued unless and until ‘aggrieved person’ has first made ‘request’ to the concerned authority but failed. Since the petitioner has claimed ‘Certiorari’—may be through amendment—this reasoning fails. Further it is a ‘general rule’ but not an ‘absolute rule’. 26. Even assuming for the argument sake that the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is correct, it did not take jurisdiction of this Court to interfere particularly when the order sought to be challenged (i.e. order dated 25-5-2001/Annexure-13 to the petition) was per se arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. 27. The Principal Secretary (Education), had no concern or jurisdiction to interfere in the proceedings initiated for appointment of ‘Authorised Controller’ under Section 16-D, U.P. Intermediate Education Act and order dated 25-5-2001 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) is absolutely illegal and supports the charge/pleading of the petitioner that Principal Secretary (Education) had acted under political pressure. Original record-which we have perused, shows that petitioner was given no ‘opportunity of hearing’ before passing order dated 25-5-2001 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition). 28. The Principal Secretary passed this order without authority/jurisdiction under U.P. Intermediate Education Act and it is infact ‘null and void’. The Principal Secretary has no business to interfere with the process of appointment of ‘Authorised Controller’ under U.P. Intermediate Education Act which action was initiated on the complaint of the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore, very much an ‘aggrieved person’. 29. Further, “menace of corruption cannot be permitted to be hidden under the carpet of legal technicalities”—as observed in K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala and another, 2003 (3) SCC 761 (para 8). 30. Coming to the next point ‘whether petitioner-appellant is ‘aggrieved person or not’, learned Single Judge, with respect we find, failed to appreciate that the petitioner was ‘the complainant’ and on his complaint, entire matter to appoint ‘Authorised Controller’ was taken up by the State Government and Educational authorities, gross financial irregularities were un-earthed and the petitioner being Member of the ‘Society’ owning and running the School as well as being Ex Manager was, beyond pale of doubt, an ‘aggrieved person’ in the instant case. 31. 31. Learned Counsel for the Respondents failed to show any decision wherein ‘complainant’ is held to be not an ‘Aggrieved-person. 32. In view of the above, we find that the impugned judgment and order dated 1-12-2005, passed by learned Single Judge, cannot be sustained and accordingly set aside. As agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties, writ petition is also finally disposed of. 33. Impugned order dated 25-5-2001 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) is set aside, and writ petition stands allowed with direction to the Respondent authorities to complete the process under Section 16-D, U.P. Intermediate Education Act at the earliest. 34. Special Appeal as well as Writ Petition (both) stand allowed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 20,000/- to be borne from the personal account of Shailendra Pratap Singh, the then Manager of the Committee of Management of the School/Respondent No. 5 (without burdening College/Society fund). In case of default in making payment of costs (stipulated above) within one month from today, the petitioner shall approach the Collector to recover the same as land revenue and pay to the petitioner-appellant Devi Prasad Mishra at the earliest, (i.e. three months from today). Appeal Allowed. ———