KOHAL SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard counsel for the parties at length and persued the paper-book.

(2.) The petitioner had applied for admission in the LL.B. five year degree Course in the category of 80% seats reserved for the wards of Army and Ex Army Personnel. Father of the petitioner had retired after serving the Indian Air Force from 14-5-1971 to 31-5-1986 as Sergeant. The respondents- Institute have denied admission to the petitioner on the ground that his father does not fall within the ambit of Clause 4.1 (B) of the Prospectus. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the decision of the respondents- Institute rejecting the candidature of the petitioner and also for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner to the LL.B. five Year Degree Course.

(3.) The respondent-Institute have filed a written statement. The claim put forward by the petitioner has been denied on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Clause 4.1 (B) of the Prospectus for the Session 2004-2005 issued by the respondents-Institute. The respondents-Institute have also raised two preliminary objections. It is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable against the Institute as it would not fall within the definition of "State" or "other authorities" under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. Army Institute of Law (AIL for short) functions under the aegis of Army Welfare Education Society (AWES, for short) which is a registered Society under the Registration of Societies Act XXI of 1860. AIL is funded exclusively by AWES and is not taking any grant or aid from the Government. Hence the writ petition is not competent. The respondents-Institute also pleaded that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands. We are unable to accept the preliminary objections of the respondents-Institute. The AIL is performing a public function of imparing legal education. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court repeatedly, it would not be possible to hold that the writ petition is not maintainable against the respondents-Institute. In the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) SCC 645 : (AIR 1993 SC 2178) it has been held that so long as the Institute is performing a public function, writ petition would be maintainable against the same. We are also of the opinion that the .petitioner has not misrepresented the facts in such a manner as to entail dismissal of the writ petition. The petitioner has merely presented an interpretation of the various clauses of the Prospectus. He has stated that he is the son of a retired Air Force Officer. He has claimed that reservation of seats is for wards of Defence Personnel and cannot be restricted to the wards of Army Personnel. This can hardly be said to be a misrepresentation. We reject the second preliminary objection raised by the respondents, also.