A college committee constituted under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act 1976 is not an authority within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution of India and hence a writ petition against such a committee is not maintainable.

This writ petition is filed by one Dr. N. K. Ramiah seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 viz., the Yadava Kalvi Nidhi, a registered society, through its secretary, and the Secretary of the Yadava College Committee, Yadava College, Tiruppalai, Madurai, to appoint the petitioner as Member of the College Committee of the second respondent.

2. The facts which led to the filing of this writ petition as mentioned in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, are as follows : The petitioner, who is a M.Sc. degree holder in Zoology and a Ph.D. degree holder in that subject, is a Senior Professor in the second respondent college. The said Yadava College is a private one established and run by the first respondent. The said college is affiliated to the Madurai Kamaraj University and is under the control and supervision of the Director of Collegiate education. The said college is governed and regulated by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act 1976 (Act 19 of 1976), S.11 of which enjoins upon colleges coming under its purview to have a college committee which shall include the principal of the concerned college and two Senior professors employed therein. R. # 8 of the Rules framed under S. # 53 of the said Act, dealing with the constitution of the Committee, provides that the term of the members shall be three years and the committee shall consist of the Principal of the College and two Seniormost professors besides the representatives of the Educational Agency, who shall be nominated by such Educational agency. As per R.8(4), whenever a vacancy arises regarding a senior most professor, the next seniormost Professor shall be nominated to the committee, R.9 deals with the power of the Educational Agency to nominate one of its representatives as secretary of the Committee. The first respondent has chosen to constitute a college committee styled as the Yadava College Committee, consisting of 11 members, of whom 7 are nominated by the first respondent, besides the Principal and two senior most professors. While so, in June 1980, the petitioner was selected and inducted into the College Committee. After his appointment, he has been serving the committee with utmost sincerity. One Nagendran, who was a Treasurer of the first respondent society, was dominating the entire college committee, acting arbitrarily and high handedly. As a result of that, there arose bitter feelings between the petitioner and the said Nagendran, who even went to the extent of instigating the Principal to issue memos to the petitioner without any reasonable cause. The petitioner, suspecting that the said Nagendran was trying to remove him and replace him by nominating the third respondent in collusion with respondents 1 and 2, and in connivance with the other members of the college committee, issued a lawyer's notice dt. 5-11-1981, to the second respondent calling upon the second respondent to recognise him as a continuing member of the college committee. The second respondent sent a reply containing 'false allegations, stating that the petitioner's term of office had expired as early as on 30-4-1981, and that another committee had been re-constituted on 6-9-1981, in which two professors inclusive of the third respondent were inducted and the petitioner was no longer continuing in the college committee. Then the petitioner filed a suit in the court of the District Munsif, Melur in O.S.413 of 1982, for declaration of his lawful rights to continue as a member of the college committee and for consequential reliefs. The learned District Munsif, though on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence he came to the conclusion that the appointment of the third respondent was in violation of the Rules, however, dismissed the suit on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction. Hence this writ petition.

3. The petitioner has raised various grounds, inter alia, contending that the first and the se