Zafruddin Khan vs A.M.U. And Ors

ZAFRUDDIN KHAN ...APPELLANT

vs.

ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY & ...RESPONDENTS ORS.

O R D E R

Leave granted. Heard.

2. The appellant filed a Public Interest Litigation in

the Allahabad High Court for a declaration that the decision

of the Aligarh Muslim University (`AMU' for short), the first

respondent herein, to establish special campus centres across

India was illegal and for a direction to the said University

not to establish a campus at Chelemala at Perinthalmanna

Mallapuram Kerala. The appellant relied upon Section 5(9A) of

the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 in support of his

contentions. The said petition was resisted by the

respondents inter alia on the ground that appellant had no

locus standi to file such a petition and justifying the

action by relying upon Section 12(2) of the said Act.

2

3. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the High

Court by the impugned order dated 7.10.2010 on the ground

that the appellant does not have any locus standi to file

such public interest litigation. The High Court was of the

view that only a Member of the University Senate or

University Academic Council or University Court could file a

writ petition for the reliefs sought by the appellant. The

High Court was also of the view that the fundamental rights

of the appellant were not affected by the proposed action of

the University and therefore, the writ petition was not

maintainable. The High Court consequently dismissed the writ

petition with an observation that if any aggrieved person

having a locus files a proper petition, the dismissal of the

appellant's petition will not come in the way of such

petition being entertained. The said order is challenged in

this appeal by special leave.

4. The appellant has pointed out that apart from being a

Member of the Bar, he is a former President of the Student

Union of the AMU, former elected Member of AMU Court, Life

Member of AMU Old Boys Association and Donor Life Member of

the AMU. He had produced documents in support of the said

averments. The said averments are not shown to be false. The

appellant claims that his only interest in filing the writ

petition was to ensure that AMU continues to be an

3

Institution of academic excellence and that no action of the

University should dilute its academic excellence. On the

other hand, the respondents contend that the writ petition

was filed with the oblique motive of maligning the Vice

Chancellor of the University. It is not necessary to examine

that aspect now.

5. We are of the view that having regard to the fact that

the appellant was a former student and elected Member of AMU

Court and is also a Donor Life Member, he has sufficient

interest to file the writ petition in public interest. The

High Court ought not to have dismissed the public interest

litigation only on the ground of locus standi of appellant to

file the writ petition.

6. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order

of the High Court and restore the public interest litigation

to the file of the High Court without expressing any opinion

on the merits of the case. The respondents will be entitled

to contest the writ petition by urging all contentions open

to them in law, including the contention relating to the

alleged malafides of the appellant.

......................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

4

New Delhi; .....................J. February 14, 2011. ( A.K. PATNAIK )