Alok Chakrabartl, J. - (1.) THE sole petitioner, an Advocate practising at Kanpur by this public interest litigation challenged admission of students in the Institute of Engineering and Technology for the session 1996-97 and for declaring the decision of Shri Shahu Ji Maharaj Kanpur University, Kanpur (for short, Kanpur University) to run the Institute of Engineering and Technology as ultra vires.
(2.) AT the outset, the respondents raised objection as regards maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of sole petitioner. As regards maintainability, the first objection is that the petitioner, herein, is not entitled to file the present public interest litigation as he has no locus standi and no evidence was disclosed that the petitioner had any Interest in the field of education much less in technical education. It is also said that no material has been disclosed as to how the sole petitioner, herein, could take up the cause of students and the guardians. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the law as settled permits the petitioner, a public spirited citizen and a practising Advocate to take up the cause of the citizens and in particular the students when education is being sold amounting to commercialisation of education and that too violating the provisions of Constitution of India and without obtaining the necessary approval either from the State Government or from All India Council for Technical Education (for short, A.I.C.T.E.) established under Statute with a view to proper planning and co-ordinated development of technical education system throughout the country. Law has been referred to by the respective parties by referring to decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court mainly relying upon the law decided In the case of S. P. Gupta v. Union of India. AIR 1982 SC 149 and the case of Krishna Swami v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1407.
(3.) ON the question of locus standi and the right to maintain public interest litigation, law has undergone substantial change. The Initial view on the question of locus standi to maintain a writ petition as decided in the case of State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal, AIR 1952 SC 12 ; Veerappa v. Raman & Raman. AIR 1952 SC 192 ; Calcutta Gas Company Limited v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044, was not followed after Innovation of concept of public interest litigation. There came a distinct departure from the age-old concept of 'locus standi and 'persons aggrieved'. Thereafter new concept of locus standi and the public interest litigation started crystaltsing in the case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhal Faizullabhai, AIR 1976 SC 1455 and Fertilizer Corporation Kanpur Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344. The position was made further clear In the case of S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, when the public spirited practising Advocates were permitted to approach the law court In public Interest to vindicate constitutional or legal rights of determinate class of society. The concept has been further developed In various cases including People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473 (popularly known as Asiad Case), Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 ; Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, AIR 1987 SC 38 ; Sheela Barse v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 2211 and Janta Dal v. H. S. Chaudhary, AIR 1993 SC 892. The decision in the case of Krishna Swami (supra) being different on facts and relevant consideration, does not apply here. The position as it stands now Is that a public spirited citizen may be allowed to approach the law court taking up the cause of public interest when the persons affected are weak and under-privileged and are unable to vindicate and protect their rights fighting legal battles provided such citizen is not mere a busy body or a meddlesome interloper and has no personal gain or oblique motive. The other limitations discussed in various cases may also lead a writ petition not maintainable. The present case involves cause of the students mainly on the allegation of sale of education at a very high price by University without approval of Government making it impossible for meritorious but poor students to get technical education in view of fees prescribed beyond the reach of large majority of meritorious students coming from poor families affecting their constitutional right to get education. Moreover, no acceptable case has been made out, of any personal Interest of the present petitioner particularly when the allegation of bias of the petitioner against Vice- Chancellor of the Kanpur University has not been made out producing sufficient material. In the above background, I And that this writ petition is maintainable.;