S SURENDRA BABU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED TIlTS TIlE 23’’ T)AY OF MAY 2012 BEFORE THE HONI3LE MR JUSTI( E ASIIOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION Nos.331 j352011(JAjj WP Nos33134-33135 OF 2011 BETWEEN: 1. SSureridra Bahu S/o Late Shankaraiah hindu, Aged about 53 years 2 DManjunath. S/o D Laxrnana, Hindu. Aged ihout 50 ears Both are al C/o 1 75 I Floor 2 Lh Cross C’ 1 310k J ivanagal F3angalore S2 Fe1ta’rrc (B’ Sri K s1Icr F ‘4nhl’o{r Vh OCate) AM) St t ef iPt3k Lv it Prau ipal e rear\ T cerflni 1 1 Depai v IL n 1iine I d c aion \i T3ujAii \i 1 ’1ia B n ‘r A0 vu]

i1]211 I3etween: Sri H. K. Prabhakar, S/o Late El .5, Krishnamurthy, Aged about 68 years. R/o C/o Ganesh Electricais & Electronics, No,20/Al, 6th Main Road. 7th Cross, N,R,Colonv, Banga1ore 19. ,Pctitioner (By Sri Keshav RAgnihotri, Advocate) And: 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary. Department of Higher Education. MS. Building, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore - 560 001. 2. The Trustee & Chairman, BMS Educational Trust, Bull Temple Road, Bangalore — 560 019. Sn \ija t re He ‘_au iran Board o.f Management, BMS College of ]..ngineering & BPvIS Institute ol Technology. Bull Tem.ple Road, Bangalore — 560 019.

ORDER W.RNo.s33i34-33135/2O1 1 is filed seeking a direction to an independent agency like Central Bureau ol Invest igatiorl (CBF for short) into the irregularities in the admissions made by B.M.S. Educational Trust (hereinafter called as the said Trust’ for short) to the BE. Course at the BM.S. College of Engineering. The petitioners are complaining of irregularities and illegalities in the admission process. The first petitioner Sri S.Surend.ra i3abu, who was working as a driver in the services of the said Trust, is suspended from service. The second petitioner Sri D Manjunath is the father of Sha..mbhavi, an unsuccessful applicant for admission to i3E, Course at BMS. (Zolletc. C) )J’ ))fC’ f” \* t±\Oi I5J/ i IS 111cc SecJna a writ Ut m.andarnus to the concerned authorities to consider the .sHons at Annexures Ii), F. (3 to L in. terms of Annexures A, F. C, F, M and F. The further prayer is

4 -6- that if the concerned respondents fail to Initiate the appropriate action, a direction be given for investigation by the Cl31 into the financial Irregularities, admission violations, genuineness In the marks cards of the students admitted In the Management quota. The said writ petition is filed by Sri H.K.Prabhakar of Ganesh Electricals and Electronics. He claims to be a beneficiary of the said Trust under the Trust Act in his capacity as a resident of the area. 3. Sri Keshav R Agnlhotri, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the admissions to the B.M.S. College of Engineering are not transparent and merit-based. He submits that the 211d petitioner’s daughter Shambhavi sought admission to B.E. Course last year. He submits that she has secured 82% In P.U.C. Despite her writing several letters and reminders to the functionaries of the said Trust, the outcome of her application for admission is not made known. What A13H.

—‘ is the criteria evolved for g1vin the admissions is not forthcoming. The method for selecting the candidates is not made known. 4. Sri Agnihotri submits that the admission practices of the 2nd respondent run contrary to the AICTE Guidelines (Annexure-F). He read out clauses (6) and (10) of the said Guidelines, They are extracted hereinbelow: “(6) All admissions in d(fjbrent approved quotas shall be made strictly on the bcrsts yf izter se merit based on common entrance tests as above. Seat allocation shall be coordinated by the Stare AuthorUij in case of State level admissions and by the Central Authority in case cf ad IfltSSlOflS made on All India basis. (10) f a Technical Institution is found to be ntninq ann of the nronisions of these quLd.eunes. roe Council may wi.thths.tw its approval, after making such enquiry as . it may consider appropr,ate and alter cii.vinq the Institution an opportunity yf being heard.”

S -8- 5. He submits that the State Government vide Its letter, dated 26.11.2011, a cow of which Is produced as Annexure-K to the petitioners’ rejoinder has already called for the explanation as to why the affiliation of BMS College of Engineering should not be withheld/cancelled. He brings to my notice the letter (Annexure-L) written by a student belonging to Bthar. It complains of various Irregularities In the admissions to B.E. Course. He submits that the said student Is an outsider and that therefore his complaint is to be taken as the objective assessment of what has been going on In the B.M.S. College of Engineering. 6. He also complains of the violations of the UGC Guidelines contained In Its Interim RegulatIons, 2003 (Annexure-G), more particularly Regulation Nos. 5, 6 and 7. They are extracted herelnbelow “5. Management quota Management quota/seats In private unaided se(f-flnanclng institutions shall be filled a

either by the Common Entrance Examination as above or through a Common Entrance Examination conducted by an approved agency (including an Association yf all colleges of a particular type in the Statef This optiort for jiiunq up management quota/seats shall be exercised by the institutions beJàre issue ofprospectus cind intimated to the Competent Authority. 6. After the admission process is over, all Institutions shall submit to the Competent Authority the list of students admitted, along with their ranks obtained in the Common Entrance Examination by the students, the fees collected and all such particulars and details as may be required by the Competent Authority. 7. Penalty If it is found that any student has been admitted ne hors merit. penalty shall be imposed on thai Institution as per the provisions contained in the UGC Act and in apvropriate cases recoqnition/affthauon may also be withdrawn. 7. Sri Agnthotri submits that many eandidat.es, who did not even meet t.he bare ehgihility criteria, are admitted to the several courses. He cites the examples .

4 -10- of Siddharth Bohra, P.Makesh and V.Kartlsha obtaining 44%, 43% and 40.3396 in C.E.t and securing the admissions to the B.E. Course In the specialties of Industrial Engineering. Medical Electronics and Computer Science, respectively. On the other hand, the second petitioner’s daughter Shambhavl has secured 82% in P.U.C., but she was not given the admission. The learned counsel also submits that the person, who Is stated to have sponsored the candidature of Slddarth Bohra does not exist at all. He submits that It Is strange that the non-existent Institution has sponsored the candidature and admission of Slddarth Bohra. 8. He submits that the 4th respondent Directorate of Technical Education Is required to publish the merit based admission list and that he has failed to do so. 9. The learned counset complains of the violation of the Apex Court judgments in the case of T.M.A. Pat Foundation & Ors. vs. State ofKarnato.ka & Ors. reported “alt

4 — 11— in (2002)8 5CC 481 and PA. Inamdar & Ora vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2005) 6 5CC 537. He submits that the consensual agreement entered into between the said mist and the Government of Karnataka is not being adhered to in the matter of admissions. He submits that neither the fee is being charged at the prescribed rates nor admissions are being given on the basis of merit. The B.M.S. College has appointed the agents, who have been maldng the admissions collecting fabulous amounts. He also submits that even before the actual vacancies in the seats arose, the admissions are made in anticipation. 10. He has also filed IA No.1/2012 seekIng the Impleadment of the Vishveshwaralah Technological University, as it is the controlling and approving authority for the B.E. Course being Imparted at B.M.S.College. ASH

4 -12- 11. He also read out the provisions contained hi Section 50 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 (‘the said Act’ for short), for buttressing his submission that no fee can be charged by the trustees for giving the service. 12. He brings to my notice this Court’s Interim order, dated 20.09.2011 and submits that the admissions in the management quota are subject to the result of these writ petitions. 13. He also brought to my notice the newspaper cuttings In Annexure-J series. They Indicate that all is not well with the said Trust. They refer to the question of proprietary of Sri B.V.Acharya working as the Advocate General and a Trustee of the said Trust simultaneously. 14. On the locus standi. Sri Agnthotri submits that the 1t petitioner in W.P.Nos.33 134-. 135/2011 is In the services of the said Trust. Tifi recently he was

- B- working as a driver. He submits that the 1st petitioner is suspended from the said Trust’s services with the ulterior motive. He submits that the affairs of the said Trust are being managed In violation of the provisions of Indian Trusts Act, 1882. He submits that the 181 petitioner, as an emplcyee of the said Trust and the 2M petitioner as the father of the unsuccessful applicant for the admission to WE. Course at B.M.S. College, are the beneficiaries of the said Trust and that therefore they have the locus stanch to file these writ petitions. 15. As far as the petitioner In W.P.No.31135/2011 Is concerned, he Is also a beneficiary In his capacity as a resident of the area, so submits the learned advocate. He read out the provisions contained in Section 3 of the said Act. They are as follows: “3. Interpretation-clause.- “tnast”- A “trusr is an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out Qf a corjflctence reposed In and accepted by the owner. or

11 declared and accepted by him, jar the benefit of another. or of another and the owi ier: “author of the trust”; “trustee”; “beneficiary”; “trust property”; “beneficial interest”; “instrument of trust” The person who reposes or declares the confidence is called the “author of the trust”: The person who accepts the conjidence is called the “trustee: the person for whose benefit the confidence is accepted is called the “beneficiary”: the subjechmatter of the trust is called “trust property” or “trust money”: the “beneficial interest” or “interest” of the beneficiary is his right against the trustee as owner of the trust property; and the instrument, f any, by which the trust is declared is called the “instrument o trust”: “breach of trust”. A breach of any duty imposed on a trustee, as such, by any law jbr the time being inforce, is called a “breach of trust”; “registered” expressions defined in Act 9 of 1872- And in this Act, unless there be something revuqncmt in the sub)ect al vonte,vt. “registered” mec.ris registered under the low for the rtgistration of documents fOr the time being in lOwe; a person is said to have “vol.1cc” of c.faci either when he ectuath knows that fdct or woen. bnt for wihi abswnrion from inqniriq or qross Ill OAk

‘I -15- negligence, he would have known It or when Information of thefact Is given to or obtained by his agent under the circumstances mentioned In the Indian Contract Act 1972, section 229: and all expressions used herein and defined In the IndIan Contract Act 1872, shall be deemed to have the meanings respectively attributed to them by that Act” 16. He submits that the authority of the petitioner in W.P.No.31135/2011 to question the irregularity in admission was never doubted by the B.M.S. College. It is at his instance and on his complaint that the Management also ordered the enquiry. However, the outcome of the enquiry is not made known to anybody Including the petitioners. 17. Sri R.Omkumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State of Karnataka and the Directorate of Technical Education submits that these petitions are liable to be rejected on the short ground of the non-joinder of necessary parties. ASH

-16- The petitioners have sought the quashing of the admissions made by the Management for the academic year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. But the students admitted in the said years are not made parties to these writ petitions. Their admissions cannot be invalidated, when they are not even made parties to these proceedings. 18. SrI Omkumar submits that no specific case Is made out for ordering the investigation by the C.B.I. He submits that none of the three petitioners are the aggrieved parties. The 18t petitioner In W.P.Nos.33 134- 135/2011 is the suspended employee; he has no Interest in the admissions being made by the respondent No.2. He submits that there is no nexus between the employment and the prayers he has made In these petitions. The 2nd petitioner is also a total stranger to these petitions. It Is his daughter, who had sought the admission to the B.E. Course. Even when

-17- she had attained the age of majority at the time of filing the petition, she has herself not come before the Court. Her father, the petItioner No.2 herein has no legally recognizable Interest In the Issues raised In these petitions. As far as the petitioner in W.P.No.31 135/2011 Is concerned, he submits that the petitioner has not given his residential address: he has only given his electrical shop address. These petitions are mischievous, vexatious and frivolous. It Is not knowable as to what are the Interests of the electricals shopkeeper In these matters. 19. He submits that the admissions are made by the respondent No.2 In terms of the consensual agreement. He submits that whenever any unfair admission practice is brought to the notice of the authorities, they have been acting In accordance with law. ASH

- 19 encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly IL’hzle dealing whh impostors and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers Impersonaunq as public-spiríted holy men, They masquerade as crusaders ofjustice. They pretend to (let in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. 6. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessaryfor the sake ojjustice arid refuse to interfere where it is czgciinst the social interest and public gooddSee State of Maharashtra v. Prcihhu and A.P. State Financial Corpn. v, GAR Re-Rolling Mills,) No litigant has a right 10 unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affciirs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access tojustice should not he misused as a licence to tile rnisconceived.. and frivolous petitions. (See .Buddhi Kola Subbarao (Dci KParasczrctrti Todab people rush to courts to file cases in profdsion under this attractive name oJ public interest Thetj must inspire confidence in courts and. among the

2() - 21. Nextly, he brought to my notice the Apex Court judgment in the case of S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY L.Rs., v. JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY L.Rs., AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1994 SC 853. The head-note read out by him is as follows: The courts of law are meant for imparting ustice bet weeri the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the lttzgation. If he withholds a viral document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing.. fraud on the court as well as on the cpposite party.” 22. The lea rued Additional Government Advocate submits that these. petit.ions are rna.nifestly meritless and spending of public tim.e on such cases is not wsrranted, In .cnnport of his submissions, he read out,

the last, part of the paragraph 5 of the Apex Court judgment in the case of SP.SHARAMA v, STATE OF M.P. reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 which is as follows: 5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and urirepenterttltj resorted to. From the statement of the facts frmund in the judgment of the High Court. it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending hefbre the First l’vlftLnsirs Court Bangalore. is a flagrant misuse of the mercies qf the law in receiving plairtts. The learned Munsf must remember that if on a meaningful not formal- reading of the plaint it is rnanifrstlu vexatious. arid meritless, in the. of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under 0. VII F. 11. CP. C taking care to see that thr. ground m.entioned therein is Ji.tlfilled. And, f clear drqfting has created the illusion f a cause oucn ‘1 p t nt, Ouci a ti rzs nec r excznüninçi the uarw searchincij under 0. X CP. C. An. activist Judge is the ans t.eer to irresponsible law suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearin.g so that hoqus litiqathsi can he shot ch en at the earliest srctqe. The Penal Cod-. is also

resourcejul enough to meet such inert. (Ch.X1) arid must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard S1-aaw remarked on the assasmalion qf Mahatma Gandhi. 1t is dariqerous to be too good.”” 23. Sri Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos, 2, 3 and 6 in W,P,Nos,33 134 33135/2011 and respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in W,P,No.31 135/2011 submits that both the petitions are actuated by malaflcles. He submits that there is nothing in common between the petitioner Nos, 1 and 2 in W,P.Nos.33i3433135/201L The I petitioner is a suspended employee and the 21 petitioner claims that his daughter unsuccessfully tried for the ad••.iissi to the B. E. Course at: the. 2’ respondent college. He submits that the seat was indeed offered to the 21d petitioner’s daugliter but she did not accept it. He submits that the 2nd petitioner refused to accept the rffp Ilnr ThI d ftF eni ‘ t

-23 - He submits that neither the 2nd petitioner nor his daughter can have any legitimate grievance against the respondents because the 2nd petitioner’s daughter secured admission at B.N.M. Institute of Technology on 8th August 2011; and 16 days thereafter, these petitions are filed on 24th August. 2011. 24. Sri Srlnivasa Rao submits that the sanctity of the cas is lost when the 2nd petitioner has associated himself with the 1st petitioner, who Is a suspended employee of the respondent Trust. As far as the news items produced In Annexure-J series are concerned, he submits that they are all at the instance of a political leader. He submits that the falsity contained in the news item is clarified by the respondent Trust by taking out a public notice dated, 05.02.2012. 25. As far as Slddharth Bohra, P.Makesh and V.Kartlsha obtaining 44%, 43% and 40.33% respectIvely and getting the admission at B.M.S. College, his ARK

-24- submission is that they are all belonging to SC, ST and other backward classes. He submits that the notification, dated 21.07.2011 Issued by the Vlshveshwaralah Technological University provides for relaxation In the matter of percentage In the qualifying examinations in respect of the candidates belonging to SC. ST and other backward classes. For the said category of students, 40% Is prescribed. AU the admissions made by the Management are approved by the concerned authorities. If any non-adherence to the regulations or norms Is pointed out by the authorities, the B.M.S.Coilege and other institutions being run by the B.M.S. Educational Trust would be anxious to report the compliance. 26. He submits that the petitioners have no locus standi whatsoever. They are behaving as if they are espousing a public cause in a public interest litigation. He sought to draw support from pan 12 of the Division

Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in ihe case of M.Furqucin Vs. Jet Airways IndIa Ltd.. &. Ors. reported in. (2008 (3) AIR Born R 295). The said paragraph reads as follows: “12. it is sealed principle o Law that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circurrrspectzon. The Courts have to be careful while entertaining such writ petitions.” 27. He. submits that his clients are seriously contemplating to initiate the proceedings for defamation. damages. etc. against the petitioners 2$. Sri P.S.Dinesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearin for the. respondent AlCTEs Regional Director submits that no relief whatsoever is sought against the AICTE, He submits that just because somebody resides in the same siree or locality, he camim claim to be a beneficiary of the trust situate••.•d in t..he same street or in the same locality. H . submits that the who],e exercise hr2ti m

-26- appears to be with a motive to malign the Institution pointing to a particular individual. Therefore, he prays for the dismissal of these petitions with the exemplary costs. 29. Sri Agnthotrl, the learned counsel for the petitioners. in the course of his rejoinder, submits that the petitioner In W.P.No.31135/2011 has made a specific prayer seeking a writ of mandamus to the AICTE to consider his representations. He submits that the grandfather of the suspended driver was also working as a driver in the services of the B.M.S. Educational Trust. Both the Surendra Babu 1 it petitioner in W.P.Nos.33i34-33135/2011 and his grandfather have had adorable respect for the said Trust. He submits that there is not much of a difference between a private trust and a public trust. The employees of the Trust and the residents of the locality are indeed the beneficiaries of the Trust and that therefore they have FISH.

27 every right to call into question the irregularities in the administration of the Trust. He has relied on the following authorities: (1) Trustees of HEH the Nizams Pifrjrimuge Money Trust. Huderabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P, Hyderabad reported in (2000.) 4 5CC 179. (2) Shrimati Shanti Dcvi &, Anr. vs. State & Ors. reported in AIR 1982 Delhi 453. (‘3.) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Bansi Dhar & Ors, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1084. (4.) Sheikh Abdul Kayurn & Ors. vs. Mulici Alihhai &. Ors. reported in AIR 1963 SC 309. (‘5.) Lalta Prcisad vs. Brahmanand & Ors, reported in. AIR 1953 All. 449. 30. The subm.issions o.f the learned counsel have n. c€.n. ed m ihnuhttul ( onsideiation hc iejuiienwnl of bc.u.sstandi c.f a party to any litigation is ,mandatoi. The existence of the right of a person, which is alleged have been. violated, constitutes the foundation for invoking th jurisdiction of the Court. Injury to person, property. bony, mind or renutation. arisin.t f•>m the ‘ “a

- 28 violations is the basis of entitlement to judicial remedies, It is trite that the rhhts tinder Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ petition is fbr habeas corpus or for quo—warranto. Another exception to this general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. Legal right or legally protected interests of the person seeking such redressal must be shown, Existence of the right is a pre requirement for the exercise of the extraordinar jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this context, it is beneficial to refer to what. the Apex Court has reiterated in its judgment in the case of MANI SUBRAT JAIN AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (1977) 1 5CC 436. The relevarlt paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow: e to ( a or ‘ petitions. n. Is elemeuanj thor.rqh P l.a to he restated that no one can k for a mandamus

29 without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be. aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Haisbury’s Laws of England, 4th Ed., Vol. I Paragraph 122; State of Haryana v. Subhash Chandra Marwaha; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and Fems: Extraordinary Legal Remedies, paragraph 198.” 31. A strict ascertainment, at the outset, of the standing of the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction may be insisted upon. The Court should not Interfere at the Instance of the petitioner, who is not an aggrirved party, unless there are exceptional circumstances involving a grave miscarriage of justice having an adverse impact on public interests, In taking this view, I am fortified by the Apcx C.ourt’s judgment in the case of JASBHAI MOTIBHAI DESAI v ROSHAN EUMAR . , RAJI ASHIR AHMED AND OTHERS

reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow: “49. It is true that in the ultimate analysis, the junsdiction wider Article 226 in general, and certiorari in particular is discretionary. But in a country like India where writ petitions are instituted in the High Courts by the thousand. many of them frivolous, a strict ascertainment, at the outset, of the standing of the petitioner to invoke this extraordinanj jurisdiction, must be insisted upon. The broad. guidelines indicated by us, coupled with other welhestablished sef devised rules of practice. such as the availability of an alternative remedy, the conduct of the petitioner etc. can go a long way to help the courts in weeding out a large number of writ petitions at the initial stage with consequent saving qf public time and money. 50. While a Procrustean approach should he avoided, as a rule, the Cou.rt should not interfere at the instance of a ‘strcmqer’ unless there are exceptional circuurrstances ineoivtnq a grave miscarriage cf justice having an adverse i.rnpact on public interests. Assurelay that the apr client i.s a strangeh, and not a busyhod.y, then also there are no exceptional circumstances in the

present case which would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari at his instance. On the contrary. the result oJ the exercise of these discreiionarij powers, in his favour, will, on balance, be against public policy. It will eliminate healthy competition in this business which is so essential to raise commercial morality: it will tend to perpetuate the appellant’s rnonopoly of cinema business in the town: and above all, it will in effect, seriously injure the fundamental rights of respondents ]Vos. 1 and 2. which they have under Article 1 9(1)(q) of the Constitution, to carry on trade or business subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law’,” 32. It is thus clear that the strangers to the issue cannot be freely permitted to access the Court. The if igational c.ompetence is required to be determined with reièrence to the nature of issue, matter or concern raised, the nature of infringement of rights or interests; the relevance, fitness or ienuIuess of the person with reference to the said factors, Even a public interest jtLan cam ot approach the Court with tic ruse- that the things being done are not to his liking; he Pas to A

A -32- show that what Is being done is causing some Injury or damage to defined class. section or group of people. Generalized grievances are also not lIt to be canvassed by any person either on his behalf or on behalf of any other party. If a party has no proper connection with the Issue under debate, then It may be said that his legal competence is under cloud. 33. KeepIng these settled legal prInciples In view, let me examine whether the petitioners crossover the threshold bar of locus-standi. The first petitioner in W.P.Nos.33134-33135/2011 Is an employee suspended from the services of the contesting respondent Trust. He is not entitled to the redressal of grievance over the Irregularities in the admission process. The second petitioner In W.P.Nos.33134-33135/201 1 Is the father of Shambhavi, an unsuccessful applicant for admission to liE. Course at B.M.S. College. If the admission Is wrongfully denied to Shambhavl, she would have ified nsa

I - 33 - the petition through her majority guardian and next Mend, as admittedly she was a minor at the time of instituting the petition. This petition, appears to have been ified by Sri D.Manjunath In his own right and not in his capacity as the father of Shambhavi. Further, It is not in dispute that she attained majority during the pendency of these petitions. She has not made any l.A. either to implead herself or seek substitution for her father in these proceedings. 34. Further, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.33134- 33135/2011 have only prayed for an investigation by CBI Into the Irregularities In the admission process. Second petitioner Sri D.Manjunath has not sought any writ of mandamus to the said Trust to admit Shambhavl to B.E. Course. No individual relief for or on behalf of Shambhavl is prayed for. Overly broad claims of abstract and speculative injuries to the general public cannot be redressed, more so when these petitions are Rail

4” not presented In public Interest. The petitioners have failed to establish their right so as to get the redressal of their grIevances. It is also doubtful whether Shambhavi has any subsisting interest in the matter. Admittedly. the seat for B.E. Course to B.M.S. Engineering College was offered by the Management. The offer was turned down on the ground of pendency of these petitions. It was open to Shambhavl and her father to accept the offer without prejudice to the contentions raised in these petitions. 35. I also find that there is misjoinder of the parties. There is no commonality between the suspended employee and the father of the unsuccessful applicant for admission. The grievances of the two petitioners do not arise from the same cause of action. There is no nexus between the first petitioner’s suspension from seniice and the prayers made in the writ petitions. VIM’.

I 36. Further, the prayer for quashing the admissions macic at B.M,S. College of Engineering for 2010-11 and 201 1-12 is not grantab1e, as the students admitted in those years are not made parties to these petitions. Without hearing them, their admissions cannot be invalidated, These petitions suffer from both misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. 37. Now let me examine whether the petitioner in W,P,No,31135/2011 has the locus-standi to seek a writ of mandani us to the authorities to consider his representations. He is said to he an electrical shopkeeper/contractor. In paragraph No.3 of the memorandum of writ petition, he claims to be a beneficiary under the Trust Act in his capacity as the resident of the area. 38. None of the authurities relied upon by Sri Anihotri come to the rescue of the netitioner in WP. No.3 1 135/20 11 The petitioner claims that he- has

36 the locus standi because he and the BMS. College are situated in the sam locality I am not persuaded to 3ccept this argument 39. In the result, I reject W,RNos33 134 33135/2011 and 31135/2011 on the short ground of locus-standi. Additionally WPNo,31 135/2011 is rejected on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties and of misjoinder of parties. 40. In view of the disposal of the main matter on the short grounds of 1ocus-standi and non-joinder and misjoinder of parties, nothing survives for any consideration of the I As for impleading Vishweshwaraiah lechnological bnwersily Ihey re the efore Ii mi sed s hi ing he on e in ie es ar 4 ne