Dismissed

S.B.v.D.Sabha Degree College v. Govt.of Ap,Prl.Scy,H.E.,Hyd,and 3

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jan 2024WP/20732/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against a college Principal. The Court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi as the proceedings did not personally affect him, noting the actual aggrieved person was the Principal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. There be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

S.B.v.D.Sabha Degree College Vs Govt.of… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE.TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 20732 OF 2016 ,

¶6

Between:

¶7

S.B.V.D.Sabha Degree College, Pullampet, Kadapa District rep by its Secretary & Correspondent, Sri N. Ramesh Babu, S/o. Sri Gangaiah, Aged 54 years. Occupation:

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner, Collegiate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad

¶12

The Regional Joint Director, Collegiate Education Government of A.P. Kadapa, YSR KADAPA DT.

¶13

Sri N. Sriramulu, S/o. N. Chinnaiah, aged 50 years, R/o. Old Post Office Street, Pullampet, Kadapa District.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the proceedings dated 6.6.2016 bearing Rc.No.1.645/Admn.lll-1/2005 of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is opposed to principles of natural justice, bad and illegal and is contrary to Articles 14,19 and21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.

¶16

|.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 25417 OF 2016^

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings dated 6,6.2016 bearing Rc,No.1645/Admn.lll-1/2005 of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad pending disposal of this Writ Petition. -

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T S PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: KARRI MURALI KRISHNA

¶20

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶21

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶22

Writ Petition No.20732 of 2016

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This writ petition came to be filed under Article 226^ofthe Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶25

‘...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the proceedings dated 6.6.2016 bearing Rc.No.1645/Admn.lll-l/2005 of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad is opposed to principles of natural justice,^badand illegal and is contrary to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the^sameand be pleased.

¶26

The petitioner claims to be the Secretary and Correspondent of S.B.V.D. Sabha Degree College, Pullampet, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. The said S.B.V.D. Sabha has^established several institutions in Pullampet, Kadapa District, among which, a school was started on 05.11.1911, which was thereafter developed into a Junior College in 1982 and a Degree Collegeⁱⁿ 1995. The petitioner submits that after the death of the founder^ofSabhaon 24.01.1935, one Sri N. Chinnaiah was appointed as Secretarycum-correspondent of S.B.V.D. Sabha in the year 1976 and thereafter, the petitioner was elected as President of the Sabha by regular election process on 27.01.2003 vide resolution^No.123.The members who were aggrieved with regard to the appointment^of

¶27

¶28

the petitioner as President have filed W.P.No. 3148 of 2003 before this Court, which was dismissed on 21.03.2003. Subsequently, a suit vide O.S.No.280 of 2006 was filed before the Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur and the same was also dismissed. While so, as the former Secretaiy & Correspondent Sri Chinnaiah deceased on 07.12.2004, the management has called for an extraordinary general body meeting on 08.12.2004, wherein, the petitioner was again elected unanimously as the Secretary and Correspondent by all the members vide resolution No. 137 dated 08.12.2004. By virtue of the said proceedings, the petitioner was elected as Secretary and Correspondent of the S.B.V.D. Sabha High School, S.B.V.D. Sabha Junior College and S.B.V.D. Sabha Degree College, Thereafter, a letter was also sent to the concerned authorities duly enclosing a copy of the resolution electing the petitioner as correspondent and secretary to the SBBV Group of Educational Institutions on 08.12.2004 and the same was acknowledged by the concerned authorities.

¶29

The petitioner further submits that as per the requirement of the Cooperative Societies Act, the petitioner has

¶30

been renewing the said society and has been getting approval of the Registrar of the Societies, Kadapa with regard to all the resolutions passed by the committee members. Even in the elections that were conducted m the year 2006, the petitioner was unanimously elected to the said post again vide resolution No. 146,

¶31

¶32

X dated 21.01.2006, which was also approved by the District Registrar, Societies. The main grievance of the petitioner is that intimated regarding the election to the post of though he has Secretary and Correspondent of S.B.V.D. Sabha Group of Educational institutions, the petitioner was not recognized^asthe Secretary and Correspondent by the concerned authorities and as such, a Special Officer was sought to be appointed^{totakeoverthe} and affairs of the S.B.V.D. Sabha High School and management Junior College, without any legal sanctity. Challenging the has filed W.P.No.395 of 2005 aforesaid action, the petitioner wherein this Court has passed the following order;

¶33

“Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed declaring the No.n917/B5/2004 dated 28-12-2004 of the District proceedings Educational Ofifcer-2nd respondent and the proceedings Rc.no.Amn-l2/13/2005 dated 10-01-2005 of the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad-1st respondent as inoperative as long as the resolutions whereunder the petitioner has been nominated as Secretary-cum-Correspondent are not interfered by the Civil Court. In alternative arrangements, the case, the Civil Court makes any arrangements made by the Civil Court prevails over the resolutions passed by the society. No costs. Stood thus, the 4th respondent, who 4. While the matter was a IS a stranger and was not associated with the Sabha nor member of the society has filed W.A.No.849 of 2006^challenging the order of this Court in W.P.No.395 of 2003 by creating^forged and fabricated documents and secured an exparte order^against further submits that vide proceedings the petitioner. The petitioner No., Rc.No.l645/Admn.IV-3/05, dated 24.06.2006, the 4th

¶34

¶35

¶36

respondent was recognized as Secretary cum Correspondent^ofthe Sabha and challenging the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.12162 of 2007, in which, this Court vide interim order dated 14.06.2007 in W.P.MP.No. 15144 of 2007 has suspended^the aforementioned proceedings. Thereafter on 10.11.2009, W.P.No.12162 of 2007 was disposed of with a direction^toDistrict Level Services Authority for conducting elections to the said Sabha. In pursuance of the same, after considering the list of members and the objections filed by the petitioner^and the 4^^ respondent, the District Level Services Authority vide^orderdated 17.08.2010, has rejected the objections filed by the 4* respondent as the 4* respondent has not produced any details of^allmembers. Subsequently, on 18.08.2010, an election notification was issued by the District Legal Services Authority mentioning^thenamesof the members of Sabha who were eligible to vote. Challenging^the said notification, the 4^ respondent has filed W.P.No.21019 of 2010, wherein this Court has granted stay of all further proceedings and the petitioner herein has filed a vacate stay petition. 5. Thereafter, the 4^ respondent has filed W.P.No. 13208 of 2016, on the inaction of the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action on the report submitted in Rc.No.82/A4/2013, dated 14.04.2013 in according approval to the Secretary cum Correspondent for dismissal of the 4^^ respondent therein^from

¶37

\ 5 services as Principal of S.B.V.D. Sabha Unaided degree college, Pullampet Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.^Thegrievance of the petitioner is that the 4^^ respondent has approached concerned authorities to recognise him as Secretary and Correspondent of S.B.V.D. Sabha Degree College and^byvirtueof proceedings dated 24.06.2006; the 4th respondent was^recognised as Secretary cum Correspondent. When the petitioner^came to know the same, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh,^dated 01.05.2007, to declare that the 4th respondent is not^theSecretary and Correspondent of S.B.V.D. Sabha Degree College. In of the same, the Commissioner has directed the pursuance Regional Joint Director of College Education to enquire into the matter. Pursuant to the said enquiry, a report was^{furnishedtothe} Commissioner of Collegiate Education and by order dated 24.06.2006 where the 4th 13.09.2007, proceedings dated respondent was recognized as Secretary and Correspondent were suspended.

¶38

4th 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the respondent was not the Secretary and Correspondent^oftheSBVD Sabha Degree College, he has mislead this Court by^filingawrit petition as if he is the Secretary and Correspondent; without having any authority to do so, has sought this Court^todirectthe respondents therein to take action on the report of^theRegional

¶39

¶40

¶41

Joint Director, dated 14.04.2013. Though the petitioner^claimsto be the Secretary and Correspondent of the S.B.V.D. Sabha Degree college, the said report dated 14.04.2013, wherein it was held that the 4th respondent continues to be the Secretary and Correspondent of SBVD Sabha Degree College, was never furnished to the petitioner and the said enquiry was also conducted behind the back of the petitioner, without issuing any notice. In the said report, action was sought to be taken against the Principal i.e. Sri. Panish Kumar, though the 4^^ respondent was not the Secretary and Correspondent of the said degree college.

¶42

The further grievance of the petitioner is that, when this court has stayed the proceedings of the respondents^wherein the 4^^ respondent is stated to be the Secretary and Correspondent of S.B.V.D. Sabha Degree College, the very same authorities^have declared the 4^^ respondent as the Secretary and Correspondent^of the same college. Further, the 4* respondent has submitted representations to the authorities to take action against the principal of S.B.V.D. Sabha Degree college and has filed W.P.No. 13208 of 2016, which was disposed of. Pursuant to the directions of this court, the Commissioner of Collegiate^Education vide Rc.No. 1645/Admn.lll-1/2005, dated 06.06.2016, has accorder permission to the acting correspondent of^the S.B.V.D. Sabha Degree College, to take disciplinary action against^Sri. N.

¶43

¶44

Panish Kumar with consultation/prior approval of the^RJDCE, Kadapa. Aggrieved by the issuance of the proceedings dated 06.06.2016, the present writ petition is filed.

¶45

The 4th respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit and has briefly stated about the maintainability of the writ petition. While referring to the cause title of the^{writpetition,the}

¶46

re spondent has stated that the petitioner is neither^theSecretary as nor a correspondent. The name of the educational society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration^Act,1860 with Registration No. 1/1911, dated 25.03.1911 is ‘Sri^Bahothama Vidya Dana Sabha’, SBVDS Educational Society, but,^thereisno registered educational society under the name and caption of ‘SBVD Sabha Degree College’ as claimed and shown by the petitioner in the cause title. It is further stated^{that,thepetitioner,} failing to produce any letter of approval by any authority^approving him as the Secretary and Correspondent of the educational

¶47

institution cannot merely claim that he is elected in the Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 08.12.2024 which does not entitle him to act as Secretary and Correspondent in the absence of any approval by the Government or by the Registrar of Society, YSR Kadapa District.

¶48

The counter further states that the impugned proceedings dated 06.06.2016 of the Commissioner of^Collegiate

¶49

¶50

¶51

Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad^doesnot pertain to the petitioner, as it relates to the disciplinary^ action against Sri. N. Panish Kumar from the post of Principal^ofthe unaided degree college of the subject educational institution.^The petitioner is neither an affected person nor an aggrieved person of the impugned proceedings. As such, the writ petition is not maintainable as the aggrieved person, if any, would only be Sri. N. Panish Kumar. As such, the writ petition is liable^{tobedismissed.}

¶52

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and Sri. K. Murali Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contentions as contended in the writ petition, has argued that though this Court vide order dated 14.06.2017 in W.P.No.l2162^of 2007 has stayed the proceedings by virtue of which the 4^1^ respondent has claimed to be the Secretary and Correspondent^of the SBVD Sabha Degree College, the respondent authorities^have declared the 4^^ respondent as the Secretary and Correspondent^of the SBVD Sabha Degree College. Taking advantage of the same. the 4^^ respondent has submitted representations to the respondent authorities to take action against one Sri. N. Panish Kumar, Principal of the said degree college and has also filed W.P.No. 13208 of 2016. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Collegiate

<br>

Education vide the impugned proceedings dated 06.06.2016,^has accorded permission to the acting correspondent of the SBVD Sabha Degree College to take disciplinary action against Sri. N. Panish Kumar. For all practical purposes, the 4^^ respondent cannot act as Secretary and Correspondent of the Institutions and cannot contemplate to initiate action against the Principal of the Degree College, without having any authority, as the^petitioneris While concluding his the Secretary and Correspondent, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that^the arguments 4th respondent is trying to oust the Principal of SBVD^Degree College illegally and without having any authority.

¶58

Learned Government Pleader on the other hand, while denying the allegations raised by the counsel for the petitioner has raised an objection that the writ petition is not maintainable. The impugned proceedings dated 06.06.2016 were issued,^permitting the acting correspondent of the college to take appropriate disciplinary action against Sri. N. Panish Kumar, but, the said proceedings do not affect the petitioner in any manner and has no grievance against the impugned proceedings. He further submitted that the writ petition filed by the 4* respondent i.e . W.P.No.21019 of 2010 which was filed challenging the election notification^dated 04.07.2016. Learned Government 18.08.2010 was allowed on of instructions of Pleader for Education has also produced a copy the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, vide

¶59

¶60

Lr.Rc.No.07/PAC.II/2024, dated 12.01.2024, wherein it is stated that it is the petitioner who addressed a letter dated 16.08.2014 alleging that the 4^^ respondent has forged the signature of the diseased correspondent and has no right to raise any allegations against the principal Sri. N. Panish Kumar and requested to conduct enquire. According to the aforesaid request, enquiry has been conducted by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Kadapa and a report was also submitted, basing on which, the acting correspondent was permitted to take appropriate disciplinary action against Sri. N. Panish Kumar with consultation/prior approval of the RJDCE, Kadapa. The impugned proceedings were issued basing on an enquiry that was conducted on the request made by the pet.tioner, but. the petkioner has no locus standi to question the impugned proceedings.

¶61

The main point to be decided in the present case IS whether the petitioner is having locus standi to file the present writ petition. On a perusal of the i impugned proceedings dated 06.06.2016 of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, it is clear that they were issued permitting the acting correspondent of the said college to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against Sri. N. Panish Kumar with consultation/prior approval of the RJDCE, Kadapa. But, the impugned proceedings does not mention the petitioner an3rwhere, which indicates that there are no circumstances under which the petitioner is affected and thus, he

•a

has no grievance against the impugned proceedings dated 06.06.2016. Though the petitioner is neither an affected person nor an aggrieved person, he has filed the present writ petition.

¶66

A person must have locus standi to file a writ as being personally affected by the impugned order or invasion of his /her fundamental rights. This principle was reiterated in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra^ and is being extracted below:

¶67

“Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have anu locus standi to raise anu grievance whatsoever. However, in exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo moto, in such respect. ”

¶68

According to the doctrine of locus standi, a person^who is stranger to a disputed matter cannot be allowed^{tointerferein} the judicial proceedings through a writ petition, but, only a person whose legal right has been violated, that is the aggrieved person against whom a decision has been pronounced, is allowed to bring an action in the Court.

¶69

(2013) 4 see 465

¶70

¶71

But, in the present case, though the impugned with regard to disciplinary proceedings dated 06.06.2016 are Sri. N. Panish Kumar, the petitioner action to be taken against one before this Court, which has challenged the same proceedings clearly indicates that the petitioner^{lackslocusstandi.}

¶72

In view of the above, this Court finds no merits in^the is liable to be dismissed. writ petition and the same shall 18. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

RE^TRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI T S PRAVEEN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶78

Two CCs to GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, High Court of^Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶79

One CC to SRI KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC]

¶80

Three CD Copies

NPC - AF Section

high court

DATED:22/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.20732of 2016

dismissed the wp without costs

S.B.v.D.Sabha Degree College v. Govt.of Ap,Prl.Scy,H.E.,Hyd,and 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.B.v.D.Sabha Degree College v. Govt.of Ap,Prl.Scy,H.E.,Hyd,and 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Private B.Ed College Management Association Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Pothuraju Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

St.Ignatius Girls High School Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

St. Mary's Girls High School, Vs The State of A.P.

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Patly Aided High School Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Merugu Vamshi Krishna, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh