PARENTS/GUARDIANS ASSOCIATION OF KARUNYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY REGD Vs. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION GUINDY CHENNAI 25

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking for a direction to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to forbear from proceeding with any disciplinary action against the sons, daughters and wards of the members of the petitioner Association pursuant to the charge memo dated 16.12.1996.

(2.) THE Institution was stated as a self financing college and i,s affiliated to the Bharathiar University at Coimbatore. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Institution never had any regard to the fees stipulated by the Government and the Supreme Court, and they were forced to pay more, in contravention of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992, It is also alleged that the students who belong to different faith and persuation were forced to attend prayer meetings arranged by the trustees of the respondent No. 3 and any failure on the part of the students visited with punishment including charging with exorbitant fine amounts. THE students felt agitated and started a movement against the imposition of illegal fine amounts which ran into several lakh of rupees. THE students of the College went on a strike and they were threatened with serious action alleging guilty of dragging and used it as a pretext brought police into the campus and this created a rub between the management and students and affected the functioning of the College. Consequently, the College was closed.

(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 3 contended that a group of 43 students who have no desire to abide by the regulations of the College hold the other 1400 students in the Campus to ransom who desire to follow the rules and regulations of the College. It is alleged that they threatened them adopting violence, intimidation and other unethical methods with the active assistance of anti-social elements. It is also alleged that the faculty and non-teaching staff have also been terrorised to that extent that they would leave the Institution if the violent acts of this group of students are not enquired into and thus left scot-free. In these circumstances, the College has been closed indefinitely pending enquiry and the violent acts of the group of students and it cannot be opened for fear of security of the inmates of the Campus, which is in a remote rural setting 25 Kms. away from the city. It is also contended that Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie to enforce the terms of the contract and as such petition deserves to be rejected as not maintainable and justified the appointment of respondent No.4. It is also alleged that third respondent Institution is a minority Institution and writ petition is not maintainable in law and on facts. It is also contended that the petitioner Association has no locus standi to espouse the cause and case of the delinquent students.