Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Shri Anil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents.
This petition has been filed praying, inter alia, the following relief:
(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party no. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the representation dated 01.10.2021 in accordance with law (contained as Annexure No. 1) and directed to the opposite party no. 5 and 6 to refund the money of Rs. 1,25,000/- which has been received in advance from petitioner for the occasion of marriage ceremony of petitioner's daughter in the interest of justice.
Brief facts of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the month of December, 2020, the petitioner fixed the date of marriage of his daughter on 28.04.2021. The petitioner gave Rs. 1,00,000/- through NEFT on 29.12.2020 to the respondent No. 5 in advance for booking of marriage place. The petitioner also gave Rs. 25,000/- in advance for catering arrangements to the respondent No. 6. In the month of March, April, 2021, permission of marriage was not given by the authorities concerned, due to which the petitioner had no option but to postpone the marriage of her daughter. In this regard the petitioner had also informed the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 much before the date of marriage, i.e., 28.04.2021 through telephone as well as through letter, communicated to them. A photocopy of such letter is annexed as Annexure-5. It is also stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has also send representation to the higher authorities, but no heed has been paid by the authorities.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner claims refund of the money given by him to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, which was given to them through NEFT, copies of which are annexed with the present writ petition.
Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the dispute involved in the present writ petition between the parties is private dispute. The present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and no mandamus can be issued by this Court as prayed by the petitioner.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahatosav Smarak Trust and others Vs. V.R. Rudani and others, (1989) 2 SCC 691 was pleased to observe as under:
"15. If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to mandamus. But once these are absent and when the party has no other equally convenient remedy, mandamus cannot be denied. It has to be appreciated that the appellants-trust was managing the affiliated college to which public money is paid as government aid . Public money paid as government aid plays a major role in the control, maintenance and working of educational institutions. The aided institutions like government institutions discharge public function by way of imparting education to students. They are subject to the rules and regulations of the affiliating University. Their activities are closely supervised by the University authorities. Employment in such institutions, thereof, is not devoid of any public character. So are the service conditions of the academic staff. When the University takes decision regarding their pay scales, it will be binding on the management. The service conditions of the academic staff are, therefore, not purely of a private character. It has super-added protection by University decisions creating a legal right-duty relationship between the staff and the management. When there is existence of this relationship, mandamus cannot be refused to the aggrieved party."
After perusal of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record we find that the dispute involved in the present writ petition between the parties is a private dispute and in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Andi Mukta (supra), no mandamus can be issued by this Court and the present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief claimed by the petitioner. The objection raised by the learned Standing counsel for the State appears to be justified.
The petitioner is at liberty to pursue the other remedy available to him under law.
Accordingly the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.10.2021 Mustaqeem/Arvind