SAI DATTA Vs. KARNATAKA RELIGIOUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is stated to be a social worker and a public -spirited person, working relentlessly for the under -privileged and is stated to have been espousing the cause of the public. It is further stated in the very first paragraph of the petition that petitioner is interested in ensuring that students are admitted to medical and other professional colleges based on their merit and not on any other consideration. It is alleged that the procedure followed by the 1st respondent is not fair and transparent, giving scope for large -scale manipulations. The main prayers made in the petition are for issuing a writ or direction to read the permission dated 18.07.2014 granted by 15th respondent to the 14th respondent as not valid for making admission of students for the academic year 2014 -15 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification issued by the first respondent by uploading it on the website, by which 1st respondent would conduct counselling for seat selection process for filling up 83 seats of the 14th respondent. The various other prayers made apparently in public interest, are: derecognizing the minority status conferred on respondent Nos. 5 to 13 as also to invalidate the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent in admitting the students for the academic year 2014 -15.

(2.) UPON the query being made in respect of locus -standi and the status of the petitioner in approaching this Court by way of public interest litigation, it was revealed that the petitioner is a practicing advocate and that there is no other social or public interest activity to his credit, on the record of the petition.

(3.) THE present petition was filed on 05.09.2014 and came up for hearing for the first time on 10.09.2014 which are the dates subsequent to the date on which counselling was supposed to have been carried on. Learned counsel admitted that no enquiry or any application under the R.T.I. Act was made by the petitioner for collecting factual details about the admission process and the arrangement or agreement between Central Government and respondent No. 14 before or after the new medical seats being sanctioned. Learned counsel however straightaway referred to the directions issued by the Apex Court in Priya Gupta vs. State Of Chatisgarh And Others reported in : (2012)7 SCC 433 and submitted that the whole process undertaken by the respondents was clearly illegal. While submitting that, it was admitted that by now if the selection process is concluded, the parties worst affected would be the students who would have been admitted and none of such students who would be affected, are joined as parties herein.