Mslon $§I3g Kt? Cf“ Mp J , J I 1 ‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE : CG : BILASPUR j WRIT APPEAL No : .23) OF 2010 ‘ 1 1 AriPELL'ANTs : / 1. Vikaslh Agrawal ; ‘ 4 K s/o Shri P.S.Agrawa1 PEITITI‘ONERs aged 33 yrs i x 2. Smt. Meera Agrawal aged :60 yrs w/o Shri P.S.Agrawa1 both '2 r/o 36/4, East Bhjlai, Distt- Durg CG --VERSUS- ; ONDENTS ‘ / 1. ‘ The State Council of Educational 1 Research and Training Through: The Direc’tor, State Council of Educational Research and Training, _ Shankar Nagar/z Raipur CG x / 2. The National Council for Teacher x Education , , Through: t / (A) t.“ The Secretary, The National Council for Teacher Educah'on, Hans Bhawan,‘Wing—II, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Near RTO, New Delhi L l t (B) The Secremry, ’ /’ Western Regional) ‘ Committee J . Manas Bhawan, Shyamala Hills : Bhopal MP E , 3. State of Chhattisgarh , “ Through : The Secretary to the Govt. of Chhattis\garh Education Department : DKS Bhavan : Raipur CG §a ‘xt\ o V\ a. s» ot r3 a $ b RESP ’ i WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF‘THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO THE DIVISION BENCH) ACT 2006 ‘ l ' ' K , i /4. Bh1la1 College of Informatlon Technology i ‘ ‘ ‘ V Through The Prmc1pa1 g ‘ v Bh11a1 College of Information J 1, 1 § > 2 ) ‘ Technology _ : 39/4,‘ Nehru Nagarr§East);_ ; l ; i - L Bhilai (tG ' ~‘ , M‘AR‘MISIRA, JJ OF 2010 , Ti‘APPEALgNo‘‘; 297 a1 and and ‘‘ .Quddus Juge f’1 - I I.Mi 5/ d W oa200 Vikas Agra HON’BLE I M. Q H RAHANT kU J ON’BLE PS IMAR MISI‘IRA, J IKAS AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER Vs HE STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING SHANKAR NAGAR RAIPUR AND OTHERS ? § W APPEA UNDER SECO ) OF THE RIT L TIN 2‘1 ‘Mlss eepah ane, ane Lawer for t taterespondents 1 85 UDGWN 2.06.2010 . QDDUSI U 7 hi i pel h ben fld git th ipgned s wrt apa as e ie aans e mu {Jde d d d7th b 2 d ugmnt an orer date\»0 DeCemer, 009. passe §b th d gl Jd (4/9 y e leame sine uge in W.PC).No.512200 isosn o he writ etition by inter—aha holdn tha e ree sout e etitioners seeng recio at dt t thd o - gains responen no l o w1raw 1ts permlssmn t dpig f t p ig t \ {th lif gh by th p ki ditn ’ t K t I x t ‘ I t DB UDDUSI 85 .WRIT APPEAL No. 29 F 2010 V . T i D Pdy Pl y he S/ 3 JT (3) I M participate in the counseling for B.Ed., course granted to respondent no.4, has become infructuous in View of the fact that the counseling for admission to B.Ed. course for the session 2009—2010 has already taken place and respondent no.4 has been permitted to take part in that counseling and further that the students have been allotted to respondent no.4 College for admission Vide Annexure R—4/31 85 Annexure R—4/32 respectively by respondent no. 1. So far as the next relief claimed to the effect that suitable arrangements be made to allocate other colleges to those students who have opted for respondent no.4/college is concerned, it has been. observed by the learned Single Judge that this issue cannot be adjudicated upon at the instance of the writ appellants in absence of the aggrieved parties i.e., students who have opted for admission in the college of respondent no.4. At the very outset, it is necessary to mention here that the writ appellants are strangers for the purpose of admission in B.Ed, course being conducted by respondent no.4] College. The fact is \that. they are the landlords of the building in which the college'is running and there is litigation between the writ appellants and the college management of respondent no.4 regarding dispute of the premises. There is also a lease deed executed between the writ appellants and J ‘ i the governing body of respondent no.4 College, Perhaps the V WT Wlit appellants filed the writ petition seeking reliefIS) that respondEnt no.1 be dimctcd to withdraw its permission to participate in the counseling for B.Ed. course granted to respondent no.4 and the students and respondent no.1 further be directed to make suitable arrangements to allocate/allot other colleges to those students who have opted for respondent no.4] College in the counseling so that respondent no.4 may leave the possession of the premises and they may get possession of the same. Otherwise, there is no reason as to why they had filed the writ petition before the court when they are neither the students nor related to any of the students who have taken admission in B.Ed. Course. We are not going into the merits of the case as the B.Ed. counseling was permitted by respondent no. 1 for the session 2009-2010 which has already taken place and respondent no.4] College was permitted to take part in the counseling. lf the students have taken the admissions in B.Ed. in respondent no.4 college it is their own risk. Neither the students nor any other persons aggrieved by the discrimination have come forward before the Court and therefore, no writ can be granted to the strangers who have no concern with the B.Ed. course of the college. This is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Q Naqarai and others —vs- State of Kamataka and others {1 977) 2 SCC 148 wherein it has been held Vide para 7 that though Article 226 of the Constitution in terms does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder, the existence of the right is implicit for the exercise of the extraordinary 6% jurisdiction by the High Court under thc said Aru'cle. It is also well established that a pcrson who is not aggrieved by the discrimination complained of cannot maintain a writ petition. Similarly in case of Vinou Kumar —Vs— State of U.P. and others reported in (2001) 4 SCC 734 the Supreme Court held in para 2 that generally speaking, a person shall have no locus-standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally anected 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. It is matter of prudence, that the court connnes the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at ‘the instance of third party where there is an eEect legal aid organization which can take care of such cases, In the instant case, the aggrieved persons would be only the students who have taken admission in B.Ed. course in the institution‘of respondent no.4. They have not raised any / complaint or grievance. The writ appellants are not related to thgse students in any manner, therefore, they have no ‘locus standi to raise any grievance. /