@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
1. The petitioner is a deemed university declared u/s 3 of the University Grants Commission Act as deemed to be University. Curiously in this writ petition, the petitioner does not seek for any direction in respect of any regulation or orders passed by the University Grants Commission. On the contrary, they want to become a member of the second respondent Association. Therefore, they filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 22.09.2010 issued by the second respondent. By the impugned order, the second respondent informed the petitioner institution that their membership for any university is upon only after their standing for five years and it must be registered as university u/s 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act. Therefore, the petitioner society was informed that they do not meet the criteria for granting provisional membership of the said association. However, it was informed that the students of the petitioner university are entitled to participate in the Sports and Youth Affairs activities organised by the association for which they will have to conduct concerned under Secretary for sports in this regard.
2. It is not clear as to how the writ petition is maintainable challenging the order of a society which informed the petitioner that their membership requirement is of five years standing of a university u/s 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act. The petitioner followed by the impugned order sent a representation dated 22.07.2011. In that representation, they have claimed that it was recognised by the University Grants Commission as university u/s 2(f) on 27.07.2006 and therefore, they comply with the requirement stipulated by the second respondent. If they are able to satisfy the second respondent with reference to their qualification for being membership, there is no difficulty but whether the second respondent is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court, the issue to be considered in this writ petition.
3. When the matter came up on 17.08.2011, notice of motion was ordered. On notice from this Court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 01.10.2011. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the second respondent is only a registered society and in the 84th Annual General Meeting held by the AIU, the five years stipulation has been made for its membership. It is also stated that the said association is a voluntary body and comprising of vice chancellors of various universities and no Government control over the functioning of the management of the association. It is managed by a standing committee under the supervision of the general body. Sometimes, it may also be given grant by the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department for specific projects but on that score it cannot be held that there was a Government control over the affairs of the association. It is also stated that it is not State with the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The typed set filed along with the counter affidavit, the minutes of the 84th Annual General Meeting dated 12.11.2009 is produced and also a copy of the rules of the society forming the association is also produced.
4. The petitioner has not made out any statutory right to insist on a membership on a private society like the second respondent. Inasmuch as the second respondent is neither the State nor the instrumentality of the State so as to come within the purview of the Article 12 of the Constitution and in the absence of any legal or enforceable right on the part of the petitioner university, the writ petition is misconceived and is clearly not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
