PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION MAHARAJAS COLLEGE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Maharaja's College, Ernakulam is a pristine and celebrated educational institution in Kerala owned and administered by the State Government. It is situated at a prime location in the city of Cochin. The massive building for housing this institution had been built in indigenous but gorgeous architecture and it spreads over in the sprawling . compound which abuts on three sides by public roads. In the year 1973, Government of India had assigned 5 cents of the college land to a society called "Kerala History Association" (for short the Association) for constructing a building for the activities of the Association. The said plot of 5 cents is located on the extreme northern portion abutting a public road called "hospital road". When the Association found it difficult to raise funds to put up the edifice designed by them they approached the Government for permission to rent out a portion of the edifice in order to raise funds. By Ext. P3 order Government sanctioned it. Ext. P3 is being challenged under Art.226 of the Constitution for which purpose three different organisations which are closely linked with Maharaja's College have joined together. One is the Parent Teacher Association and the other is the Alumni Association and the third is the College Students Union. We have no doubt that petitioners are genuinely interested in the well being of their "Alma Mater" and that their grievance deserves serious ruminative exercise.

(2.) Learned single Judge before whom the original petition came up did not agree with the contentions of the petitioners and dismissed the original petition. This appeal is, therefore, moved by the aforesaid three organisations jointly.

(3.) The main plank on which Shri. S. A. Nagendran, learned senior counsel (who was instructed on behalf of the appellants) addressed arguments is that Ext. P3 is bereft of public interest and hence is liable to be quashed. According to him, since Ext. P3 does not mention that it was issued in public interest, it is, prima facie, sufficient to conclude that the order was not made in consideration of public interest. He further contended that as the order is silent about the crucial aspect the deficiency cannot be replenished through the affidavits filed in answer to the challenge made against the order. In support of the contention, learned senior counsel invited our attention to the decision reported in Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner ( AIR 1978 SC 851 ) which was followed by this court in State of Kerala V. Balakrishnan ( 1992 (1) KLT 420 ) and Gopalakrishnan v. District Collector ( 1990 (2) KLT 841 ).