Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Anurag Tiwary vs State Of Ap on 18 May, 2020
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.122 of 2020
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar) Heard Sri Anurag Tiwary (party in person) / petitioner No.1, who is student of third year of National Law University, Visakhapatnam and Sri Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader attached with the office of Advocate General.
2. The petitioners are students of the same University. The present writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with the following assertion :
a) That urgent kind intervention of this Honourable Court is very much warranted in these extraordinary and unprecedented times towards students of National Law University and other such Universities in the state of Andhra Pradesh, who come from economically weaker section of the community, under-privileged and minority background, mental health affected students, who are/will be forced to sit for internal evaluation through the on-line mode in the coming days. These students are also being forced to pay for the amenities they haven't even used in the past few months. For the economic year 2020-2021, these universities will also be charging these students a mandatory increment in the Tuition fees which is done every year. This violates the students Fundamental Right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
b) It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the fees structure of such universities should be revised with time and should adapt to changing circumstances. They must not be rigid rather must be reasonably flexible to further the cause of education.
c) No mandatory fee increment in the fee structure can be regular and forever inspite of the changing face of the world economy when governments across borders are forced to open their treasuries for the benefit of the citizenry.
d) In Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (1993 AIR 2178) the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the law that educational institutions are not business enterprises and therefore cannot be run with the primary object of making profit. It is settled law that the State is the custodian of the welfare and wellbeing of its citizens.
e) That conducting internal evaluation or online classes or any kind of assessment in the coming days, suffers from the presumption that every student has the required basis infrastructure necessary to appear for such evaluation, classes or assessments. Those students who do not have the basic infrastructure such as high speed internet connectivity, laptops, computers, mentally stable emotional spaces and physical spaces in their homes or who come from far flung areas will be unreasonably classified against those students who have the aforesaid privileges. This will violate their right to equality.
f) That the universities are not being empathetic towards those students who suffer from mental health issues and choose not to disclose or talk about it. Not taking into account the diversity of the student community and the challenges they might face, before taking a decision is a violation of Article 21 of the affected students.
3. Sri Anurag Tiwary, petitioner No.1 has argued that despite the fact that the students are not availing hostel, they are being charged by the Universities concerned, all over the State of Andhra Pradesh and as such the respondent is required to take appropriate steps.
4. An objection was raised by the learned Government Pleader that the writ petition may not be treated as PIL nor the writ petition is required to be entertained in view of non-impleading of necessary parties.
5. Besides hearing, we have also perused the material available on record and after going through the same, it is evident that directly or indirectly, both the petitioners, who are students of National Law University are interested party and as such, the present Writ Petition may not be treated as PIL. Besides this, the relief which has been sought for in the writ petition appears to be a relief, which requires roving enquiry, which is not permissible while exercising writ jurisdiction. In the writ petition except impleading the State of Andhra Pradesh, MHRD Department, no University or Vice Chancellor or any official of the University has been impleaded as party. Accordingly, there is no need to interfere into the matter. However, if the petitioners feel aggrieved with the action / in action on the part of the University, they would be entitled to approach them demanding justice. It is settled principle that 'Writ of Mandamus' is normally required to be invoked if demand of justice is made before the concerned authority and is not entertained.
6. With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR _________________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY 18th May, 2020 IKN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.122 of 2020 (Order of the Bench dictated by the Honourable Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar) 18.05.2020 IKN