LPASW No. 63 of 2014, MP No. 69 of 2014. Case: Dr. Akshay Tickoo Vs S. M. V. D. U. Jammu and Kashmir High Court
|Case Number:||LPASW No. 63 of 2014, MP No. 69 of 2014|
|Party Name:||Dr. Akshay Tickoo Vs S. M. V. D. U|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Sunil Sethi, Sr. Adv., Ankesh Chandel, Advs. and For Respondents: D. C. Raina, Sr. Adv., Anil Verma, Vikas Magotra, Advs.|
|Judges:||Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J. and B. S. Walia , J.|
|Issue:||Constitution of India - Articles 226, 12|
|Citation:||AIR 2015 J&K 96|
|Judgement Date:||September 02, 2015|
|Court:||Jammu and Kashmir High Court|
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.
1. Appellant-writ petitioner filed writ petition against Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University through Registrar as also against the Vice Chancellor of the said University, which writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Writ Court in terms of order dated 24thof February, 2014 by holding that Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University is neither State nor an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was further held that the writ petitioner can avail alternative remedy.
In the writ petition, the appellant-writ petitioner claimed infraction of statutory provisions/regulations at the hands of the respondents.
When enforcement of statutory provisions/regulations or their infraction is claimed in the writ petition against a institution, the writ petition will be maintainable, notwithstanding the fact that the institution is neither Government nor an authority under Article 12 of Constitution.
Further in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Ors., reported as 2015 (5) Supreme 705: (AIR 2015 SC 3194), the respondent-University which is discharging the public functions would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court.
Mr. D.C. Raina learned senior counsel, in his fairness, conceded the above...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL