D SIVA PRASAD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHARA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a practising advocate and has absolutely nothing to do with admission against 20% B-category seats in Under Graduate Professional Course in Engineering (including Technology) has filed this petition in the name of public interest litigation for striking down the Andhra Pradesh Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Under-graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2006 (for short, the Rules') and for issue of a mandamus to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to ensure that admissions are made by respondent Nos.4 and 5 colleges after issuing notification in leading Telugu, Hindi and Urdu newspapers and national newspapers. He has further prayed for issue of a direction to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to supply application forms to all the candidates and make admissions in a fair manner as per merit.

(2.) In the affidavit filed by him, the petitioner has tried to establish his locus to file litigation pro bono publico by stating that he had filed Writ Petition No. 1998 of 2005 for declaring the strike by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation employees as illegal. He has then made a reference to Rule 6 of the Rules and averred that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are making admissions without issuing advertisement; that they are not issuing applications for admission against 20% B-category seats and that the admissions are being made on selective basis and by collecting money in the guise of donations. In paragraph 21 of his affidavit, the petitioner has averred that three meritorious candidates namely, M. Ratin, B. Swaroop Kumar and K. Srinivasulu Reddy, who have secured 95%, 92% and 82.60% marks respectively, have not been favoured with any response despite the fact that they had applied long back.

(3.) We have heard Shri M. Satyanarayana Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scanned the averments contained in the writ petition. In our opinion, the petitioner does not have the locus to invoke jurisdiction of this Court through this so-called pro bono publico litigation. The mere fact that the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition to highlight the sufferance of the public due to strike by the employees of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is not at all sufficient for entertaining his locus to question the procedure being adopted by respondent Nos.4 and 5 for making admissions in Undergraduate Engineering Courses. In the context of the prayer made by him, the petitioner's position is nothing more than a mere bystander or busybody. He has no concern, direct or indirect, with the admissions in the Undergraduate Engineering Courses. If he had any tangible interest in the matter, he would have, before seeking intervention of the Court, made a representation to respondent Nos.1,2 and 5 to 7 to highlight the alleged irregularities being conducted by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in making admissions and implored upon them to take corrective measures. However, the fact of the matter is that he has simply walked into the Court by filing petition in the name of public interest litigation.