1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/8/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition (MD)No.9232 of 2011 N.Shanmugavel ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 2.S.Vellaichamy Nadar College(Autonomous) Madurai, Rep. By its Secretary. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to initiate action on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.06.2011 in accordance with law within a reasonable time. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Janakiramulu For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi, Special Government Pleader ORDER Mandamus is sought for in this writ petition by a Member of Nadar Mahajana Sangam, for a direction to the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, to initiate action on the basis of the representation of the petitioner, dated 26.06.2011, cannot be granted for the following reasons. 2.In supporting affidavit, the petitioner has contended that being a member of the Sangam, he has got every right to question and see that the Management and Administration of the College are effectively performed in the best interest of the institution, student and teacher community. He has further submitted that though there were several complaints from the parents of the second respondent College that capitation fee has been collected over and above the prescribed fee and though the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai, has also sent Special Audit Team to the second respondent college on 13.12.2008 and 14.12.2008, and found that an unauthorized amount of Rs.19,88,000/- has been collected from the students during the academic years 2004, 2005 and 2006, no action has been taken by the first respondent. He has further contended that even though based on an audit inspection and on admission of the Secretary to the second respondent College, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai, has passed an order, directing the second respondent to remit the said unauthorised amount to the Government account and though the appeal preferred by the second respondent against that order has been dismissed by the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, the first respondent herein, on 09.03.2009, the second respondent has not chosen to remit the excess capitation fee collected. In supporting affidavit, the petitioner has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 further contended that though the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, the first respondent herein has issued a show cause notice in R.C.No.41336/G2/08, dated 15.10.2009, to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against the College for violation of the statutory provisions and though the petitioner has made a detailed representation, dated 26.06.2011, to the first respondent to take appropriate action for violation of Sections 28(1) & (2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institution (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992, the first respondent has failed to exercise his duties and take appropriate action for the reasons best known to him and in such circumstances, the petitioner has sought for a mandamus, as stated supra. 3.Except two sentences in supporting affidavit, he, being a member of the sangam, has every right to question and see that the management and administration of the college are effectively performed in the best interest of the institution, student and teachers community, rest of the averments pertain only to a complaint of collection of capitation fee and action taken by the educational authorities directing the second respondent to remit the amount, and no where in the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has furnished any particulars as to how and what manner his personal right has been infringed. The petitioner has not substantiated with any materials before this Court, as to what is legal wrong or injuries, violation of any statutory or legal or personal right under any of the provisions of law, to fall under the expression "an aggrieved person". Courts have consistently held that unless a person is personally affected by an impugned order or action or inaction of the respondents, or his fundamental or other rights directly or substantially is invaded or infringed, he has no right to invoke extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Supporting affidavit clearly shows that it is an attempt to expose the cause of the parents of the second respondent College that capitation fee has been collected over and above the prescribed fee. The writ petition is styled more like a public interest writ petition, than a private interest litigation. 4.In this context, it is useful to refer to few decisions of the Supreme Court, as to who is said to be an aggrieved person: (i) In Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 1739, the Apex Court has held as follows: "Para-2: Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. Fit is a matter of prudence, that the Court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or inquiry at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal ad organization which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness, or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief." (ii) Yet another decision considered by the Apex Court in Nadar Mahajana Sangam's case is State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Dev and another, AIR 1964 SC 685, where the Supreme Court has held as follows: "But though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 is wide in that sense, the concluding words of the article clearly indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of a party, it must be established that the party has a right and the said right is legally invaded or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a petition under Article 226". (iii) In Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs.Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1966 (2) MLJ (SC) 87: 1966 (2) An.W.R.(SC) 87: AIR 1966 SC 828 (vide para.8) the Supreme Court has held as follows: "The right that can be enforced under Article 226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified." (iv) Finally, after considering the legal principles, the Division Bench of this Court in Nadar Mahajana Sangam, Madurai through its General Secretary (For and on behalf of Shareholders of Tamilnadu mercantile bank Ltd.) Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Department of Banking Operation Development Centre-I, World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Bombay and others reported in 2006 (1) CTC 776, at Paragraph No.8, has held as follows: " The writ petition filed by the appellant cannot have any personal grievance in the matter and at best, only its members can have any grievance. It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition can only be filed by someone who is personally aggrieved. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly used and only in those clear cases where the rights of a person have been seriously infringed and he has no other adequate and specific remedy available to him. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is based on the existence of a right in favour of a person invoking the writ jurisdiction." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 5.On the pleadings and materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person and seek for any mandamus. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR gcg To The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 1CC TO MR. V. JANAKIRAMULU, ADVOCATE,S R: 28051: 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 28004: DM:2011:AUGUST:29:: Order in W.P.(MD)No.9232 of 2011 17/08/2011 4P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/