Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1390 (RAJ)

Yogesh Rajput v. State of Rajasthan

2012-05-29

M.N.BHANDARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition a challenge has been made to the action of Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani (for short 'the BITS') i.e. respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 (No. 5 is the President, Students' Mess Council, BITS). None of the actions of the respondents No.1 and 2 are under challenge. 2. Learned counsel was granted time by this court to address on maintainability of the writ petition. This was in regard to Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 3. It is stated that respondent No. 3-BITS has been notified as "deemed to be university" under of section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act (for short 'the UGC Act'). The BITS is governed by the UGC Regulations thus it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. It is further contended that if an institution undertake work which is otherwise to be performed by the Government then also it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The respondent BITS is involved in running educational institution which is parallel to the institution run by the Government. For the aforesaid reason also, BITS fall under the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. 4. It is lastly urged that Malviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT) fall under Article 12 of the Constitution and aforesaid is also having the status of deemed to be university under section 3 of the UGC Act. Looking to all these facts, writ petition is maintainable against respondent No.3 to 5. This is more so when applicability to fall under Article 12 of the Constitution was admitted by BITS before Madras High Court in the case of R. Kumar & ors v. State of Tamil Nadu & ors., Writ Petition No. 10566 of 2001, decided on 7.1.2005 . 5. I have considered submissions of learned counsel and perused the record. 6. Perusal of the pleadings reveals that no facts pertaining to financial or administrative involvement and control of the Central or the State Government in any manner has been pleaded. The only argument is in regard to section 3 of the UGC Act whereby BITS has been declared as 'deemed to be university'. Merely declaring respondent BITS as deemed to be university does not cover it under Article 12 of the Constitution. The only argument is in regard to section 3 of the UGC Act whereby BITS has been declared as 'deemed to be university'. Merely declaring respondent BITS as deemed to be university does not cover it under Article 12 of the Constitution. Similar issue was considered by this court at length in the case Gopal Prasad Varshney v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., reported in RLW 2009 (3) Raj 2029 where Full Bench of this court decided the issue holing the Bank of Rajasthan not falling under Article 12 of the Constitution. This was after taking note of the arguments that even private banks are governed by the Reserve Bank of India and its Regulations and their directions. A deemed to be university is having same status as of the banks which are governed by the RBI Regulations. 7. To satisfy requirement of Article 12 of the Constitution, it is to be shown that State or the Central Government are having financial or administrative control over the institution concerned, the petitioners have not pleaded facts in that regard. An institution having no financial or administrative control by the State or the Central Government does not fall under Article 12 of the Constitution. 8. So far as judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) is concerned, I find that issue aforesaid was not decided therein thus judgment aforesaid cannot have bearing in this case. 9. So far as argument regarding respondents working in the field of education is concerned, this alone cannot bring them under Article 12 of the Constitution of India if Government is also running similar institutions. If the aforesaid argument is accepted then work of banking is also done by nationalised bank yet Bank of Rajasthan was not covered in the Full Bench judgment. 10. Looking to the reasons given above, writ petition cannot be entertained against respondents No.3 to 5 as they do not fall under Article 12 of the Constitution. So far as respondents No. 1 and 2 are concerned, no relief has been claimed against them. 11. In view of aforesaid, writ petition so as the stay application are dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the petitioners to seek alternative remedy available under the law.Petition dismissed. *******