MEENA KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are taken up together as they raise the same issues. The prayers sought in the petitions are also virtually identical, the only difference being that in WP(C) No.22562-63/2005, the petitioners themselves are seeking allotment of the new shared studios belonging to the Lalit Kala Akademi, whereas in the other writ petition, i.e., WP (C) 7808-13/2005, the petitioners include societies of artists and individual artists who by themselves are not seeking allotment, but have filed the petitions in the general interest of the body of artists.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the Lalit Kala Akademi has three types of studios for artists known as Garhi Studios. The first kind are the original studios which are termed as 'Old Studios'; the second kind are the new constructions which are termed as 'New Shared Studios'; the third kind are the 'Community Studios'. The old studios as well as the new shared studios are allotted to two or more persons jointly except for one old shared studio which was allotted to Prof. Sankho Chaudhary who has admittedly been treated as an exception and is not in controversy. The community studio houses are for upto 20 artists at a time. Prior to 1998, the allotment of studios was not regulated by any rules. However, in 1998, the Rules of procedure for admission to and Regulations governing the use of the shared studio facilities of the Akademi at Garhi, Delhi were formulated. Separate rules were formulated for Old Garhi Studios as well as the Shared New Garhi Studios. The Old Garhi Studio Rules 1998 as well as the Shared New Garhi Studio Rules 1998 contained categories of artists which are described in identical fashion in both the sets of rules. The categories were "distinguished" artists, "eligible" artists, "eminent" artists and "recognised" artists. The dispute in the present case pertains to the Shared New Garhi Studios and the rules for allotment to artists. Rule 3 of the 1998 Rules prescribes the procedure for admission to these shared studios of the Lalit Kala Akademi. The said Rule 3 reads as under:-

(3.) It is clear from a reading of clause (i) of the aforesaid rules that priority was to be given to recognised and eminent artists who were not in full time employment or business and / or without studios of their own. It is the case of the respondents that the four petitioners in WP(C) 22562-65/2005 do not fall in the category of "eminent" or "recognised" artists. Eminent artist has been defined as under:-