speaking for the Bench, stated the law, thus:
"23. It is well settled that whenever allegations as to mala fides have been levelled, sufficient particulars and cogent materials making out prima facie case must be set out in the pleadings. Vague allegation or bald assertion that the action taken was mala fide and malicious is not enough. In the absence of material particulars, the court is not expected to make "fishing" inquiry into the matter. It is equally well established and needs no authority that the burden of proving mala fides is on the person making the allegations and such burden is "very heavy". Malice cannot be inferred or assumed. It has to be remembered that such a charge can easily be "made than made out" and hence it is necessary for the courts to examine it with extreme care, caution and circumspection. It has been rightly described as "the last refuge of a losing litigant". (Vide Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra; Ajit Kumar Nag v. GM (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.)"
16. In the instant case, a report was sent pointing out the merits and demerits of the case. The fact remains that in a growing population need for educational institutions are also on the raise. Whether the norms and requirements of establishing an educational institution are complied with or not is the issue falls within the ambit of the authorities. Whether it is viable or not is not at all the concern for granting permission. As long as the object of the educational institution is to promote education, the action to start a new school cannot be said that it is not in furtherance of the object. The authorities have considered these aspects and accorded permission and hence it cannot be said that the third respondent has acted with legal malice.
17. Secondly, whether the opening of a school is in furtherance with the object of which the educational agency was founded or not is the other question. Now a days, the attraction towards engineering colleges has dwindled down and for students aspire to join courses which will be useful to design their future. In that aspect of the matter, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that both school and the college stand to benefit each other mutually has much force. The students from the school join the college run by the same educational agency and get preference too. In that way, students of the school have brighter opportunity to pursue their higher education. Such an action is certainly in conformity with the object of the educational agency, i.e., for furtherance of education. Such activities taken in this direction cannot be termed as not in furtherance with the object of the educational agency.
18. In so far as the contention that opening of the school will be detrimental to the students, or it is opened commercial motive, dangerous to the life of the children and no useful purpose will be served by opening the school are the factual matters to be decided after elaborate evidence. Admittedly, there are other schools functioning in the same area and the children studying in those schools are also seek admission in the college. In so far as the safety of the students are concerned, it is for the authorities of the educational department to issue suitable orders controlling the educational agency. Permission will be granted by the educational authorities after taking into consideration of these aspects.
19. Further, the contention that the property of an educational institution will stand transferred to education institutions is also not sustainable. The educational agency can start any number of educational institutions withing its property. For example, when the norms for starting a college is specified that it requires ten acres of land, then the educational agency shall maintain the ten acres for running that college. The excess lands can be used for starting another educational institution in furtherance of its object. It cannot be said educational agency has vested the entire property for that particular institution and is not entitled to start any other institution. Likewise, if an educational agency runs buses or vans or another other motor vehicle for transporting the students to their educational institution, it will not become the property of that particular institution. The motor vehicle will remain the property of the educational agency and it will facilitate to transport the students only. On the same analogy, starting a new school or college in the surplus land owned by the educational agency cannot be considered as illegal. Therefore, the contention that permission granted by the competent authority to transfer the land to start a school is not without application of mind or illegal.
20. The rival contention made by Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent as to the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, the grievances raised by the petitioner - association is not in conformity with the object for which the writ petition is filed. The main grievance of the petitioner association is that the Staff Quarters is used as a Hostel for the students. The Staff Quarters was constructed using the funds of University Grants Commission and they were deprived of the facilities given by utilizing the building for housing 80 students. The grievance of the petitioner lies elsewhere. The petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition, against the order passed by the third respondent, which has no reasonable nexus with the object of espousing the grievance of its members for the misuse of staff quarters.
21. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the fifth respondent, there are several educational institutions like St. Joseph College, Seethalakshmi Ramasamy College, etc., which are running schools as well as Colleges in the same campus. The petitioner association is also having units in those colleges, wherein, there is no objection for them for those educational agencies for running schools and colleges in the same campus and for establishing new schools in the college campus. Therefore, the attempt of the petitioner - association is malafide.
22. Moreover, the registration of the parent - association is cancelled and it is no more a Registered Society. If at all the petitioner - association has filed the writ petition, they should have filed it in the name of the Secretary of the Association and not by a person in the local unit. On these grounds also, an unregistered Society, represented by an incompetent person, cannot maintain a writ petition.
23. Be that as it may, whether the petitioner - association has a right to be heard or not, is the moot question. The petitioner - association is concerned by the National College and it has no connection to the Educational Agency. If at all they have grievances pertaining to their service conditions, college, welfare of the students or for the improvement of the institution, namely National College, they can sustain the writ petition. But, the petitioner - association has no locus to maintain the writ petition, in so far as the affairs of the Educational Agency in starting schools or colleges. The petitioner - association without establishing the properties owned by the College, on an apprehension, has preferred this writ petition. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner
- association does not have locus to maintain the writ petition, as it is nowhere connected to the object of the Society or does not have any legal right to question the Educational Agency.
24. In such circumstances, the writ petition merits no consideration and accordingly, stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Director of Collegiate Education College Road, Chennai.
2.The Registrar Bharathidhasan University Trichirapalli.
3.The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education Trichirapalli Region, Trichirapalli.
4.The Correspondent The National College Trichirapalli.
5.The Secretary Academy of Higher Education National College Campus Trichirapalli.
.