Delhi High Court
Kamal Educational And Welfare Society ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. [Along With ... on 29 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: 4(2004)DLT115, 2004(77)DRJ605
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog
JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. The six captioned petitions have a common factual backdrop and raise the same issue of law. They are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Petitioners are societies registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860. Inter alia, one of the object of the societies is to impart professional and vocational education.
3. Kalka Education Society has established an institute by the name of "Kalka Institute of Research & Advanced Studies". Petitioner Kamal Education & Welfare Society has established an institute by the name of "Trinity Institute of Higher Education". Petitioner Mother Teresa Institute of Management has established an institute by the name of "Mother Teressa Institute of Management."
4. The said three institutes are affiliated with the third respondent, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. Affiliation has been granted by respondent no.3 to the first two institutes for conducting BIS/BCA courses as per course curriculem of respondent no.3 institute. Affiliation to Mother Teresa Institute of Management is only for a BCA course.
5. Affiliation was granted by respondent no.3 on 24.7.2000 to the Trinity Institute of Higher Education, on 18.7.2000 to the Kalka Institute of Research & Advanced Studies and on 17.7.2000 to Mother Teresa Institute of Management.
6. At the time when petitioners had sought for affiliation with respondent No.3 University, it was clearly stated that the institutes would be running from a school premises. Kamal Education and Welfare Society and Kalka Education Society had informed that a school site was owned by them. It was on land allotted by DDA for running a school. Petitioner Mother Teresa Institute of Management had informed that it would be conducting classes at a school site obtained by its sister organization Secular Education Society, to whom land was allotted by DDA.
7. Since the requirement of respondent no.3 was that the petitioners should obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Government of NCT of Delhi, petitioners submitted application to the Government of NCT of Delhi seeking its no objection to conduct classes on obtaining affiliation of respondent No.3 from the school sites. Petitioners had submitted application for grant of 'No Objection Certificate' by respondent no.1 in the year 2000. It is not denied that complete disclosure was made pertaining to the site from where respective institutes proposed to be established by the petitioners would be conducting classes i.e. the site of the schools.
8. Government of NCT of Delhi, respondent No.1, processed the applications received for grant of 'No Objection Certificate'. No Objection Certificate was granted. Kamal Education and Welfare Society was issued requisite no objection on 28.2.2000, valid for a period of three years. It was renewed on 5.5.2003 for the academic session 2003-04. It was further renewed on 27.5.2004 for the current academic session. Petitioner Kamal Education Society was granted the requisite No Objection Certificate by respondent No.1, valid for a period of 3 years, on 29.3.2000. It was renewed on 30.4.2003 for the academic session 2003-04. On 28.5.2004, it was renewed for the current academic session. Mother Teressa Institute of Management was granted 'No Objection Certificate' by respondent No.1 on 28.2.2000. It was extended on yearly basis on 6.7.2001, 5.6.2002, 5.5.2003 and lastly on 27.5.2004 for the current academic session.
9. When respondent No.1 granted the no objection certificate to the petitioners for the first time, it required them to make permanent arrangement for running the institute, meaning thereby that petitioners had to house the institutes in buildings exclusively meant for the institutes established by the petitioners. Letters are identical. The one issued to Mother Teresa Institute of Management on 28.2.2000 be noted. It reads :
"No.DHE/PS/2000/331 Dated : 28th February,00 The President, Mother Teresa Institute of Management, C-Block, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092 Sub: Issue of NOC.
Sir, I am directed to inform that No Objection Certificate has been granted to you for a period of 3 years for the following course(s).
1. B.C.A. The No Objection Certificate is valid for a period of 3 years during which you are required to make permanent arrangement for running the institution. For further formalities required for affiliation with the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, you are advised to get in touch with the Registrar (Academic), Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Yours faithfully, sd/-
(A.S.AWASTHI) Director (Higher Education)"
10. At each stage when respondent No.1 renewed the no objection, it was emphasised that petitioners must acquire a permanent site. It was noted in the letters of renewal that the institutes were running from school sites. When last renewal was granted for the academic session 2004-05, this aspect was reiterated. Letter dated 27.5.2004 written by respondent no.1 be noted. It reads :-
"GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI DIRECtorATE OF HIGHER EDUCATION B-WING, 2nd FLOOR, 5 SHAM NATH MARG, DELHI-54 DHE-4(29)/2004-05/095 Dated: 27.5.04 The Chairman, Mother Teresa Institute of Management, C-Block, Preet Vihar, New Delhi.
Sub: Revalidation of "No Objection Certificate" for BCA Course for the academic year 2004-05 with 35 intake. Sir/Madam, I am directed to convey the approval of the competent authority for revalidation of "No Objection Certificate" for running BCA Course with 35 intake by your institute for the academic year 2004-05, subject to the following conditions :
(a) The NOC is valid for the academic session 2004-04.
(b) The Institute should make arrangement or a permanent campus for running the institute during the period.
(c) It should be ensured that the following are provided before the commencement of the academic session 2004-05 :
i)The Faculty is needed to be recruited as per norms.
ii) The library should be strengthen to accommodate the students.
iii) The institute should obtain permission of the appropriate competent authority for running the programme in the existing school premises.
(d) You are advised to get in touch with Registrar, Guru Gobind singh Indraprastha University for further formalities relating to affiliation.
(e) The Trust/Society/Institute shall abide by all the rules and regulations in force in Delhi of the Govt. Of India, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, other local authorities and the affiliating university.
(f) The institute should function as a legal and authorized building and there should not be any violation of rules and regulations prescribed under the law.
(g) There should not be violation of any terms and conditions regarding land use as prescribed by Govt There./Local bodies/Authority.
(h) NOC shall be liable to be cancelled/ withdrawn in case of any violation of above conditions or any other statutory provisions/rules.
(i) If it comes to the knowledge of the Govt. of Delhi that the NOC has been obtained by giving any false or misleading information or by concealing or suppressing any material fact or information the OC granted shall be cancelled.
Yours faithfully, sd/-
ASSTT.ACCOUNTS OFFICER"
11. In compliance with the mandate of the no objection granted by respondent No.1 requiring petitioners to house the institutes in a permanent campus, petitioners had applied to DDA for allotment of land. Policy of DDA is to allot institutional land to educational organizations only if they have a sponsorship from the respondent No.1. Accordingly, petitioners submitted applications to respondent No.1 to sponsor their names to DDA for allotment of land. Respondent No.1 processed the applications submitted by the petitioners. It cleared them and sponsored their names to DDA for allotment of land. Sponsorship letters are dated 8.8.2000, 18.1.2001 and 18.1.2001 for the three societies. The one issue qua Mother Teresa Institute of Management be noted. It reads:-
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRItorY OF DELHI DIRECtorATE OF HIGHER EDUCATION OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI-110054 No.DHE-1(23)/Estt./1999-2000/CB/ To The Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
Sub: Allotment of land to Mother Teresa Institute of Management.
Sir, I am directed to inform you that it has been decided by the Government of Delhi to recommend the case of Mother Teresa Institute of Management for allotment of an area of land as per DDA norms and conditions for housing a college which is affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indrapratha University. Yours faithfully, sd/-
(A.S.AWASTHY) Director(Higher Education) DHE-1(23)/Estt./1999-2000/CB/ Dated: 18.1.01"
12. Having obtained the requisite no objection from respondent No.1 to conduct classes from school sites and having been granted affiliation by respondent No.3, petitioners opened the institutes from the school sites. Having obtained sponsorship from respondent no.1 and having applied to DDA to be allotted land, petitioners received a jolt when respondent no.1 withdrew the sponsorship for DDA to allot land. On 13.4.2004, respondent No.1 wrote to DDA cancelling the sponsorship of all the petitioners. Letter dated 13.4.2000 qua Mother Teresa Institute of Management be noted. It reads :-
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI DIRECtorATE OF HIGHER EDUCATION B-WING, 2nd FLOOR, SHAM NATH MARG, DELHI-110054 No.DHE-1(23)/Estt./1999-2000/ To The Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
Sub: Cancellation of sponsorship for allotment of land to Mother Teresa Institute of Management. Sir, I am directed to refer to this office letter No. DHE-1(23)Estt/1999-2000/CB/160/2407 dated 18.1.2001 regarding sponsorship for allotment of land to Mother Teresa Institute of Management and to inform that the said sponsorship has been withdrawn. Yours faithfully, sd/-
(V.VALTE) DY.DIR(HIR.EDN.) DHE-1(23)/Estt./99-2000/94 Dated: 13.4.04"
13. Petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the letter dated 13.4.2004 withdrawing their sponsorships. Inter alia, it was pleaded that cancellation was without show cause and without hearing. Challenge succeeded. Vide order dated 6.5.2004, this Court quashed the letters dated 13.4.2004. It was held that since natural justice was denied, action was invalid. Liberty was granted to respondent No.1 to issue a show cause notice, grant hearing and proceed as per law.
14. Respondent no.1 issued show cause notice to the petitioners on 7.5.2004. Following was alleged :-
DHE-1(23)/Estt./99-2000/PF/24 Dtd: 17.5.04 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Whereas your case for sponsorship of land to DDA has been withdrawn by this office and communicated to the Vice-Chairman, DDA vide letter of even No. dated 13.4.2004. That the letter dated 13.4.04 stood quashed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court fore want of principles of audi alteram partem. That the Govt. of Delhi instituted an inquiry into the circumstances of sponsorship of land to your society and the findings of the said inquiry suggests that the society has not received any permission from the DDA for running higher education institute for conducting B.Ed. & BCA courses in the premises of the school building. Since the land allotted by DDA was for running the school only, the society has violated the terms and conditions of the allotment of land by using the said land/premises for the purpose other than school for which the land was allotted by DDA. That the society, therefore, has also not complied with one of the conditions of "No Objection Certificate" issued by this office i.e. the Trust/Society shall abide by all the rules in force in Delhi of the Govt. of India, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, other local authorities and the affiliating university. You are hereby directed to show cause in writing to us as to why your said sponsorship should not be withdrawn on account of violation of terms and conditions of land allotment to you for running a school only in a week's time from the receipt of this notice failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say and action as deemed fit will be taken. Sd/-
(VED PRAKASH) DIRECtor, HIGHER EDUCATION"
15. Twin allegations are forthcoming in the show cause notice on which the proposed action is based. The second dovetails into the first. Allegation one is that petitioners did not obtain permission from DDA to run higher education institute from a school site, which site was on land obtained from DDA for running a school, society had violated the term of the allotment of land for use thereof and secondly that it was a term of no objection granted that the society shall abide by the rules in force in Delhi, including rules of local authorities.
16. Petitioners responded to the show cause notice aforesaid on 20.5.2004 and 21.5.2004. (2 dates on which the 3 petitioners replied). Replies are near identical. The one by Mother Teresa Institute of Management be noted. Inter alia, it was submitted :-
"3. The fact that the Institute was being run in the school premises was informed to both the Directorate of Higher Education and GGS Indraprastha University at the stage of making initial application for affiliation with the University. This constituted the basis of the NOC of DHE dt. 28.2.2000 stipulating the validity of 3 years "during which you are required to make permanent arrangement for running the institution". Similar stipulation was made by GGS Indraprastha University granting us the letter of affiliation.
4. As pointed out during our discussions with you on 17.5.2004, DDA, in its circular dt. 8.7.1996 had permitted the utilization of a part of the premises by institutions of similar nature without prior approval of DDA (copy enclosed for ready reference). Since the application for affiliation with GGS Indraprastha University was made on 17.1.2000, the circular referred hereinabove was very much in force, since the said date is 8.7.1996. Obviously, therefore, this had superceded the initial letter of allotment of land to the school. Therefore, it stands to reason that no terms & conditions of DDA in respect of the allotment of land were all violated.
5. The inquiry report, which has not been shown to us, must have contained this information wrongfully in contravention of the facts of the case.
6. We had in fact requested DDA for issuing NOC for running the institute vide our letters dated 9.2.2000 and 15.6.2000 (copy enclosed for your ready reference). IN the second letter to DDA, we had specifically stated that in case no reply to the letter is received with 15 days, it shall be presumed that DDA had no objection in regard to our request. From this standpoint also, the onus of not responding to our communications by DDA rests solely on that organization and not on us.
7. On both the above counts, therefore, there is no fault at our end. The Inquiry Committee has wrongly concluded that some permission from DDA was at all required for running the courses. The allegation and inferences, are, therefore, totally wrong and unwarranted.
8. You may please peruse the contents of NOC issued by your august office on 28.02.00, wherein there is no mention of the clauses stated by you in your notice under reference. In any case, as we have shown above, no rules in force either from Govt. of India or Govt. of NCT of Delhi, or any other local authorities etc. had been violated by us. The allegation in para 4, is, therefore, vehemently denied. It is submitted that this appears to be based on wrong information without any basis whatsoever."
17. Vide orders dated 16.6.2004, respondent No.1 rejected the reply and cancelled the sponsorship. Reasons as recorded :-
"1. It is not a fit case for sponsorship to DDA for allotment of land because the society/Institute is running BCA course in the school building complex and as reported by the management separate rooms have been constructed for the purpose. Though the society had written to DDA on 9.2.2000 requesting to grant NOC for conducting B.Ed. & BCA courses from school premises, no permission has been received from the DDA for running higher education institute in the premises of the school building. The society has thus violated the terms and conditions of allotment of land. The terms and conditions specifically provide that the land allotted will be used only for the purpose for which it is allotted i.e. for running a school.
2. No project report for the professional courses has been submitted by the Society. The Deptt. had also not carried out detailed inspections/inquiries before sponsoring the case for allotment of land.
3. The Society has not complied with the conditions of "No Objecton Certificate" issued by this office for the year 2003-04 i.e. the Trust/Society shall abide by all the rules in force in Delhi of the Govt. of India, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, other local authorities and the affiliating university."
18. Acting under the letter dated 13.4.2004, qua Kamal Educational & Welfare Society, DDA rejected the application of said society for allotment of land. Rejection was conveyed vide letter dated 26.5.2004. Following was communication :-
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER (LAND DISPOSAL) F.12(126)2000/IC/1776 Dated: 26.5.04 Whereas IAC recommended the case of Kamal Educational & Welfare Society for allotment of land measuring 4678.20 sq.m. Sector-11, Dwarka for setting up an institution (Higher Education) in 2/2003. Whereas the Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide its inquiry report submitted by letter no.1(350)/LM/03/L&M/Pt.File/2/25912 dt. 23/2/04 has informed that it has decided not to recommend allotment of land to Kamal Education & Welfare Society as they are running BCA Classes in their present building premises (situated on 1.43 acres of land in Vikas Puri, which was also allotted by DDA in1996). Whereas recommendations of IAC are only advisory and are not binding on the Competent Authority. Moreover, by running a BCA course on the land allotted by DDA to the society for a school, the credential of the society have been called in to question and GNCTD has decided not to recommend the society's case for allotment of land. The relevant extract of the inquiry report of GNCTD is as follows :
"The society is running a BCA course in the school building and as reported by the management separate rooms have been constructed for that purpose. However, no permission has been sought from DDA for running a higher education institute in the school building premises. The society has thus violated the terms & conditions of allotment. The terms and conditions specifically provide that the land allotted will be used only for the purpose for which it is allotted i.e. for running a school."
Therefore, considering the above cited facts, it has been decided to reject the case of Kamal Education & Welfare Society for further allotment of land for setting up for Institute for Higher Education.
R.K. Singh, J.
COMMISSIONER (LD)"
19. Petitioners challenge the order dated 16.6.2004 of respondent No.1 cancelling their sponsorship to DDA for allotment of land. Further, Kamal Educational & Welfare Society challenges DDA's letter dated 26.5.2004. Mandamus is sought against DDA to direct it to allot land to the petitioners.
20. Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners with his usual brevity, but forcefully, launched a three pronged attack :-
(i) Action of cancelling sponsorship by respondent No.1 was arbitrary and unreasonable, being an outcome of a mis-directed approach, in that, relevant material was not considered.
(ii) Circular dated 8.7.1996 of DDA was ignored.
(iii) There was discrimination. Three similarly situated institutes, 'Delhi institute of Advance Studies Rohini', 'Rukmani Devi Institute of Advance Studies Rohini' and 'St.Lawrence Institute of Medical Science Geeta Colony' Delhi who were running similar institutes at school sites were sponsored for allotment of land.
21. Mr.Anil Sapra, learned counsel for DDA urged that petitioner societies had violated terms of allotment when land for school sites were allotted. Covenants of the allotment prohibited the societies from using the building for a purpose other than running school, save and except permission from DDA. There was no permission. A violator of law could not be the recipient of another grant.
22. Mr.Salim Ahmad, learned counsel for the first respondent adopted similar argument.
23. Admitted position is that when DDA allotted land to the societies to establish a school thereon, allotment had a negative covenant. The covenant mandates that site shall be used for running a school and there shall be no sub-letting or transfer without prior permission of DDA obtained in writing.
24. On 8.7.1996, DDA issued a circular as under :-
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DIRECtor (LANDS) OFFICE No.F.4(41)/98/IL Dated 8.7.96 Subject : Subletting of the institutional premises.
Delhi Development Authority has decided to allow permission for subletting of the institutional premises with immediate effect subject to following conditions :
1. The allottee institutions should put up the building by fully utilizing the permissible FAR.
2. The institution can let out a portion of the built up area to institutions of similar nature after obtaining prior permission of DDA by furnishing a copy of the certificate of registration and a copy of the memorandum and articles of association of the licensee institutions.
3. The institution may also be allowed to sublet a portion of the premises having built with prior approval of the DDA for service organizations like banks, on payment of 25% of the license fee received;
4. The institutions can also utilize a portion of the premises for the purpose of residence of the functionaries of the organization subject to the condition that the area so used does not exceed 15% of the built up space subject to a maximum of 150 sq.mtr.
5. The total area sublet under the above categories and the area used for residential purposes should, however, not exceed 40% of the built up area.
6. In case of subletting of the premises to institutions to similar nature covered under para (2), without prior approval of the DDA. The lessee shall be required to pay 15% of the rent so penalised for the leased premises and 30% from the service organizations like banks etc. who use the place for commercial purposes.
Sd/-
ASMA MANZR) DIRECtor (LANDS)"
25. Circular permits use of school building by institutes of similar nature. Of course, after obtaining permission from DDA. Default in obtaining permission is condonable under Clause 6. Similar nature would mean, a purpose similar to that for which the building can be used. Education is the genus in the present case. Primary, Middle, Higher and College level education are all specie thereof. Thus use of a school building for imparting college level education is use of similar nature. I may note that the word is "similar" and not "same".
26. It may be noted that petitioners did not formally obtain permission from DDA to establish the institutes from school sites but at the same time, it cannot be ignored that petitioners did not act surreptitiously. While seeking NOC from respondent No.1 to establish the institutes on affiliation with respondent No.3, each petitioner dutifully informed that till they acquired permanent site, they would run the institute from the school sites. It was the education branch of respondent No.1 which had sponsored the case of the petitioners when DDA had earlier allotted the school sites. It was this very branch which granted the N.O.C. for the petitioners to conduct BCA/BIS classes from the school site.
27. Circular dated 8.7.1996 permits use of school site for similar purpose. Obtaining permission is a procedural requirement. It is not a case where the violation is of a substantive obligation. Violation, at best is procedural. It is condonable.
28. One fact stands out. Respondent No.1 withdrew the sponsorship on 13.4.2004 (which was quashed), but on 27.5.2004 and 28.5.2004, it renewed the NOC for all the petitioners to run BCA/BIS classes for another year at the school site.
29. In Delhi, we have a peculiar problem. Private colonization is out. DDA has monopoly on land. Everyone is at mercy of DDA. The growing student community needs educational institutes. Respondent No.3 was established by respondent No.1 as a University in Delhi. Respondent no.3 has hardly any funds. Private participation was sought. Provisional affiliation was granted pending acquisition of permanent sites by these private players. Land use has to be conformed to. Where would these private players establish temporary institutes till they get land? There are wheels within wheels. Before one gets permanent affiliation, its working is monitored. Good and efficient working entitled one to permanent affiliation. Faculty has to be built. There is a spinning effect. Policy decision must thus be interpreted rationally and with a purposive attitude. Each step of the policy must be informed by reason and guided by other policies having material bearing on the subject. Any pedantic approach would upset the apple cart.
30. It is not that the petitioners kept DDA in the dark. Mother Teresa Institute of Management had written a letter on 9.2.2000 before it established the management institute at the school site seeking approval from DDA. Following was written :
To Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, INA Colony, N.Delhi.
Reg: Grant of NOC for conducting B.Ed. & BCA Courses from Shri Guru Gobind Singh Indraprasatha Vishwavidyalaya, Delhi. Ref: Your Ref.No.F.18(58)/87.Instl. Dt. 10.8.1988.
Sir, We had been allotted two acres of land in "C" Block, Preet Vihar, Delhi, for educational purposes. Starting with a primary school, our school known as mother Teresa Public School has since grown to the leading Senior Secondary School in the area. As the nation marches ahead in the new Millennium, the educational needs of the society in the neighborhood are also increasing. It is becoming increasingly important to provide opportunities to the youngsters who complete their schooling, to acquire skills as would ensure reasonably good employment opportunities, and thus, lessen their anxieties for their future. Thus would naturally add to their self confidence, and develop them into better citizens of tomorrow. We have identified Information Technology, and Education as the two such promising areas, in which our students could be trained without much difficulty and which could be developed without our premises, for present for the larger good of the community. We, therefore, request you to kindly grant us a No Objection Certificate for the purpose, so that we may obtain the necessary approvals from the competent State Govt. and University authorities, to conduct these courses in our school premises. Thanking you, Sincerely Yours, sd/-
Ashok K.Jethy Chairman"
31. On 15.6.2000, reminder was sent as under :-
To Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, INA Colony, N.Delhi.
Reg: Grant of NOC for conducting B.Ed. & BCA Courses from Shri Guru Gobind Singh Indraprasatha Vishwavidyalaya, Delhi. Ref: Your Ref.No.F/18(58)/87 Dt. 10.8.1988 and our letter No.SEC/DDA/00/ dated 9.2.2000. Sir, We invite your kind reference to our letter referred to above and request for an early response. IN case no reply is received from you within a month from the date of issue of this letter, we will presume that you have no objection in conducting the aforesaid courses in our premises earmarked in a separate wing of the building. Thanking you, Sincerely Yours, sd/-
Ashok K.Jethy Chairman"
32. Indeed, in law, there is no such thing as absolute or unfettered discretion. Exercise of discretionary power and judicial control over the same stands catalogued in law. Judicial Control over Executive/Administrative action (discretionary) is intended to keep the administrative power within its legal bounds so as to protect the citizens against abuse of power. The powerful engines of authority must be prevented from running amok. Abuse carries no necessary innuendo of malice or bad faith. The authority exercising discretionary power may misunderstand its legal position and where this is found to be so, corrective action would be taken under judicial review.
33. Practically, an application of the rule of law means that every discretionary action must have legal warrant for what it does. On this elementary foundation, courts have erected an intricate and sophisticated structure of rules.
34. Exercise of discretionary power has many facts; one of it being that discretion has to be exercised, based on policy to further the purpose for which the discretion is vested. The rule of judicial interference where discretionary power is exercised apart from mala fide or bias is generally limited to the 'standard of reasonableness'.
35. In the words of Lord Denning MR in Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engineering Union, (1971) 2 Q.B. 175 (at 190):
"The discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That means at least this: a statutory body must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous considerations which it ought not to have taken into account then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith; nevertheless the decision will be set aside."
36. The famous judgment of Associated Provincial Picture House Ltd. Vs. Wednesvury Corporation, (1948) 1 K.B. 223, explains how 'unreasonableness' covers a multitude of sins. It reads as follows :-
"It is true that discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word 'unreasonableness' in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting 'unreasonably'. Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority. Warrington L.J. In Short V. Poole Corporation gave the example of the red-haired teacher, dismissed because she had red hair. This is unreasonable in one sense. In another it is taking into consideration extraneous matters. It is so unreasonable that it might almost be described as being done in bad faith; and, in fact, all these things run into one another."
37. The expression 'arbitrary and capricious', 'frivolous and vexatious' and 'capricious and vexatious' are used as a synonym for 'unreasonable'. The meaning of them all is the same. The question is whether the power has been exceeded.
38. Tested on the anvil of law of reasonableness as extracted in paras 32 to 36 above, DDA's policy circular stated 8.7.19996 and the facts, especially the ones noted in paras 25 to 31 above predicated thereon the facts noted in paras 6 to 11 the impugned order dated 16.6.2004 cannot stand.
39. Respondents have not explained how 3 institutes, names whereof as noted in para 20 above, stand on a different footing. In pleadings of the respondents there is not even a whisper for a justification. Petitioners have indeed been discriminated against.
40. Impugned order dated 16.6.2004 is quashed. Impugned letter dated 26.5.2004 communicated to Kamal Educational & Welfare Society is also quashed. Mandamus is issued to DDA to process the case of the petitioners as per law treating them to have a valid sponsorship from respondent No.1.
41. For record, it be noted that though neither party addressed arguments on the issue, in show cause notice it was not an allegation that project report for professional course was not submitted by society and department has also not carried out detailed inspection. Therefore, to withdraw sponsorship on said ground was not permissible. Order has to be confined to the show cause notice.
42. No costs.