PANWAR, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to conduct a proper investigation into every transaction which has enabled the use of property for the purposes other than educational purposes and also restraining them from entering into such transaction for furtherance of any activity other than educational.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case, in succinct, are that the petitioner, claiming itself to be a duly registered Students Union, has field this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation, alleging, inter alia, that vide order dated 22-8-1947, the land measuring seven Bighas in the Bari of Late Kothari Moti Singhji was given to the Hindi Vidhya Peeth, Udaipur free of Nazrana and Nasul Tax for educational purposes with the stipulation that if the land is not used for the purpose for which it had been recommended for being given, it would revert to the State and the said educational institution would not be entitled to any compensation. It has further been alleged in the writ petition that the respondents No. 3 and 4 are bent upon to use the land for commercial purposes. When the matter was agitated before the respondent-authorities, respondents No. 3 and 4, Vide Annx. 2 dated 19-2-1980, assured the petitioner union that for the construction of bank building or any other commercial purposes and it was further assured that if any construction is made, the same shall be utilised for the purpose of the educational institution. Despite this, when the building constructed on the land in dispute was allotted to Oriental Bank of Commerce, the petitioner union agitated the matter tooth and nail and ultimately an understanding reached between the parties that since the functioning of the bank has commenced, it shall be allowed to continue for five years more and the Additional District Magistrate, Udaipur shall hold an inquiry into the matter, of which the report shall be submitted to the District Collector, Udaipur (respondent No. 2) for further action. THE agreement arrived at between the parties in this regard is Annx. 3 THE assertion of the petitioner union is that in blatant violation of the agreement (Ann. 3) and the assurance (Ann. 2.) the land allotted for educational purposes is being put to commercial use and thereby the respondents are violating the terms and conditions of the allotment order Ann. 1. Hence this writ petition. Answering respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed a detailed reply refuting the averments made in the petition and raised certain preliminary objections to the effect that (i) the petition is pre-mature as the necessary approval for transfer of land has not been obtained from the Director of Education, (ii) Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth Kul, Udaipur and Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth (Deemed University), Udaipur are the necessary parties but they have not been impleaded as such but only respondents No. 3 and 4 have been impleaded as the party-respondents; (iii) petitioner union has no locus standi to maintain the petition union has no locus standi to maintain the petition because it has neither any interest in the educational institution nor in the general public; and (iv) the property is not being alienated but it is being put on lease so as to provide a source of regular income for running the educational institution and it is in consonance with the decision of the State Government dated 4-9-2001 (Annx. R. 3/1), which authorises leasing out vacant land of Government schools for commercial use for generating income. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before us, nothing has been urged with regard to preliminary objections raised in the reply-affidavit. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner union that the land had been granted to the institution for uplifting the education in the area with the condition stipulated in the Order of Grant (Annx. 1) and as such the land granted for educational purpose cannot be used for the purpose other than for which it was granted, respondents No. 3 and 4 are utilizing the land for commercial purposes to subserve their own cause and despite assurance and written memorandum of undertaking, they are bent upon to put the land for commercial use to gain undue profit. Per contra, Mr. M. S. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for answering respondents No. 3 and 4, urged that the constructions have been made on the vacant land and the same have not been put to commercial use for earning any personal gain but for meeting out the required expenses for smooth running of the educational institution and this decision is in consonance with the decision taken by the State Government for leasing out vacant lands of the Government Schools for commercial use to generate income as is evident from the news item dated 4-9-2001 (Annx. R 3/1) published in the daily news-paper "danik Bhasker. " It has further been contended that it has become a hard nut to crack to run the educational institution for paucity of funds and as such if any decision is taken for generating the income to run the institution smoothly then it is in the interest of the student and general public and such decision cannot be termed as an public and such decision cannot be termed as an out-come of ulterior consideration or oblique motive to earn any personal gain by any of the respondent authorities.
(3.) PUBLIC interest litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation. The purpose of PUBLIC Interest Litigation (for short, "p. I. L. ") is to promote the public interest which mandates that violation of legal or constitutional rights of a large number of persons, poor, down-trodden, ignorant, socially or economically disadvantaged should not go unredressed. The Court can take cognizance in P. I. L. when there are complaints which shock the judicial conscience. P. I. L. is pro bona publico and should not smack of any ulterior motive and no person has a right to achieve any ulterior purpose through such litigation. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Shimla & ors. , (1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :- " Where the Court finds, on being moved by an aggrieved party or by any public spirited individual or social action group, that the executive is remiss in discharging its obligation under the Constitution or the law, so that the poor and the under-privileged continued to be subjected to exploitation and injustice or are deprived of their social and economic entitlements or that social legislation enacted for their benefits is not being implemented this depriving of their rights and benefits conferred upon them, the Courts certainly must intervenes and compel the executive to carry out its constitutional and legal obligations and ensure that the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community are no longer subjected to exploitation or injustice and they are able to realise their social and economical rights. " In Mohammed Anis Vs. Union of India & ors. (2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a case should not be entertained unless the petitioner points out that his legal rights have been infringed. ;