Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 841
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R Devdas, J.
Law Students Association - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2125 of 2022 (S-RES)
Decided On : 05-03-2022
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Review
Headnote
Quo-Warranto - Vice Chancellor Appointment - The court held that the writ petition seeking a writ of Quo-Warranto against the Vice Chancellor of the Law University cannot be maintained in its present form and should be filed as public interest litigation. The court reserved liberty to the petitioner to file public interest litigation with the same prayer seeking Quo-Warranto.
Fact of the Case:
The court found that the petitioner, an association of law students, did not have individual or collective interests infringed by the appointment or continuation of the 4th respondent as the Vice Chancellor of the Law University. The court concluded that the writ petition was not filed in the nature of public interest litigation and rejected it, reserving liberty to file public interest litigation with the same prayer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition seeking a writ of Quo-Warranto against the Vice Chancellor could not be maintained in its present form and should be filed as public interest litigation. The court reserved liberty to the petitioner to file public interest litigation with the same prayer seeking Quo-Warranto.
Issues: The main issue was whether the writ petition seeking a writ of Quo-Warranto against the Vice Chancellor of the Law University could be maintained in its present form or should be filed as public interest litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the fact that the petitioner, an association of law students, did not have individual or collective interests infringed by the appointment or continuation of the Vice Chancellor. The court also considered the nature of the petition and the requirement for it to be filed as public interest litigation.
Final Decision: The court rejected the writ petition seeking a writ of Quo-Warranto against the Vice Chancellor, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file public interest litigation with the same prayer.
Sri. Vittal B.R., Advocate, for the Appellant, Smt. M.C.Nagashree, Aga, for the Respondent.
ORDER
R. Devdas J., (Oral). - When this matter came up for preliminary hearing on the last occasion, this Court was of the prima facie opinion that this writ petition seeking a writ of Quo-Warranto as against the 4th respondent-Vice Chancellor of the Karnataka State Law University, cannot be maintained in its present form and the same is required to be filed as public interest litigation. The Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA were directed to assist this Court in this regard,
2. Learned AGA submits that in many of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the cases of HARI BANSH LAL Vs. SAHODAR PRASAD MAHTO AND OTHERS, (2010) 9 SCC 655: DX DURYODHAN SAHU AND OTHERS Vs. JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS, (1998) 7 SCC 273; GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS, (2010) 10 SCC 707: AND STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SALIL SABHLOK AND OTHERS, (2013) 5 SCC 1, it is held that the public interest litigations are not maintainable in service matters. However, the same is maintainable when the prayer is for issuance of a writ of Quo-warranto.
3. On going through the Memorandum of writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner is an association of law students, but it does not appear that the petitioner is a registered Association. Even if it is a registered Association, it is clear that the objectives of such an Association would be to protect the interest of the law students who are its members. No individual interest or collective interest of the law students seems to be infringed or affected by the appointment or continuation of the 4th respondent, as the Vice Chancellor of the Law University. However, if the petitioner Association insists that the prayer of the petitioner for the issuance of the Quo-warranto against the respondent is to be heard, this court is of the considered opinion that this writ petition not being filed in the nature of the public interest litigation, requires to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
4. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner, Association to file public interest litigation, with the same prayer seeking of Quo-warranto, if it so desires.
Ordered accordingly.
