Dismissed

Gayatri Vidyapeeth v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2024SAW/538/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 538/2024, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a society against an order allowing a Lokayukta complaint. The court held the society lacked locus standi as the complaint targeted its Director, not the society itself, rendering the petition not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; writ petition held not maintainable as filed by the society which was not the legally aggrieved party.

Gayatri Vidyapeeth Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:37128-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 538/2024

¶4

Gayatri Vidyapeeth, B-137/a, Sethi Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Its Ex Officio Secretary, Dr. R.d. Sharma S/o Shri K.g Sharma Aged About 65 Years Office At B- 137/a, Sethi Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Lokayukt Secretariat, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Joint Secretary, Medical And Health Department (GroupIii), Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

Sumit Kumawat S/o Shri Purushottam Lal, R/o B-157, G- 2, Royal City, Kalwar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain with Ms. Apoorva Agarwal

¶13

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶14

Judgment

¶15

04/09/2024

¶16

Heard on admission.

¶17

Challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge is based mainly on the ground that the Lokayukta does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint made against the Director of the Society as the society is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India; complaint is frivolous; earlier also criminal cases were lodged which have ended in closure; that the

¶18

[2024:RJ-JP:37128-DB]

¶19

[SAW-538/2024]

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

complainant is not acting bona fide and filing frivolous complaints and that the complaint is beyond limitation.

¶22

Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition holding that the society is covered under the definition thereof as provided under Section 2(i)(iv)(d) of the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1973 (for short ‘Act of 1973’). It has been further held that the complaint cannot be said to be time barred in view of the provision as contained in the Act of 1973 as the allegations regarding irregularities and illegalities in running the colleges by the society are of continuous nature and cannot, therefore, be said to be barred by limitation.

¶23

In our opinion, the writ petition itself was misconceived. It is not the society against whom the action has been initiated. The complaint was lodged against the Director of the Society. The society has no locus to file petition and it cannot be said to be legally aggrieved. Legally aggrieved is the Director/person against whom the complaint has been lodged in the Lokayukta. The other findings which have been recorded by the learned Single Judge pertain to the status of the society. In the writ petition, we do not find that any averment was made that the society is not controlled by the State Government nor notified by the Government in this behalf in the Official Gazette.

¶24

In our opinion, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of it being not maintainable, having been filed by the society and not by the person/Director against whom complaint was lodged in the Lokayukta.

¶25

The writ petition was liable to be dismissed for the reason as has been stated by us. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any

¶26

[SAW-538/2024]

¶27

[2024:RJ-JP:37128-DB]

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

relief to the petitioner and the writ petition is held not maintainable, having been filed by the society.

¶30

The appeal is dismissed.

¶31

In case, any complaint is filed by the

¶32

person/Director/employee/servant of the society, he will be at liberty to take such remedy as may be available to him under the law and the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall not come in his way.

¶33

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶34

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ

¶35

N.Gandhi/Tanisha/43

Gayatri Vidyapeeth v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayatri Vidyapeeth v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Spml Infra Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Spml Infra Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs Mukesh Kumar Balai S/O Roop Narayan Balai

Reshama W/O Mohmmad Ali @ Bablu Vs the State of Rajasthan

Virander Singh Mann Son of Late Shri Umrao Singh Mann Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Shri J.C. Luthra S/O Shri H.R. Luthra