# Professor Vineeta Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 912
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-04
- **Case number:** Public Interest Litigation No. 2440 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/professor-vineeta-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49689
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - P. St. Universities Act, 1973 -
Sections 2(3), 4(1-A), 4(4) & 5: - Lease
deed of University's Land - Executed by District
Magistrate - for establishment of a huge
Electricity Sub-station - Executive Council and
the Vice-Chancellor of the University have not
taken
any
step
to
prevent
unauthorized
utilization of University land, without the
University's consent or permission, for the
purpose of establishment of a Sub-Station by
the Power Corp. - Whether present Public
Interest is maintainable - court held that, there
is no public interest at all involved in the petition
on merits as well, in as much as the
establishment of a big Sub-Station would cater
to the interest of the University as well, besides
other areas - It was noticed upon a perusal of
the lease deed that the land, whereon the SubStation has been established is Government land
and for that reason, the lease deed has been
executed by the Collector on behalf of the
Governor in favour of the Power Corp. - Petition
being lacking of bona-fides, deserves to be
dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon the
petitioner, directions accordingly. (Para - 11, 12)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

## Text

912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
purposes of providing reservation to
Backward Class of citizens in the context
of elections to the urban local bodies, the
claim of transgenders for their inclusion
amongst Backward Class of citizens shall
also be considered.

(E) There will be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 912
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Public Interest Litigation No. 2440 of 2022

Professor Vineeta Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shivam Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Sri Lal
Dev Chaurasiya , Sri Avneesh Tripathi

Civil Law - P. St. Universities Act, 1973 -
Sections 2(3), 4(1-A), 4(4) & 5: - Lease
deed of University's Land - Executed by District
Magistrate - for establishment of a huge
Electricity Sub-station - Executive Council and
the Vice-Chancellor of the University have not
taken
any
step
to
prevent
unauthorized
utilization of University land, without the
University's consent or permission, for the
purpose of establishment of a Sub-Station by
the Power Corp. - Whether present Public
Interest is maintainable - court held that, there
is no public interest at all involved in the petition
on merits as well, in as much as the
establishment of a big Sub-Station would cater
to the interest of the University as well, besides
other areas - It was noticed upon a perusal of
the lease deed that the land, whereon the SubStation has been established is Government land
and for that reason, the lease deed has been
executed by the Collector on behalf of the
Governor in favour of the Power Corp. - Petition
being lacking of bona-fides, deserves to be
dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon the
petitioner, directions accordingly. (Para - 11, 12)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The petitioner is a retired Professor
and ex-Head, Department of Modern
Languages
and
Linguistics
of
Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya,
Varanasi (for short, 'the University'). While
in service, she taught French language at
the University and retired in the year 2018.

2. It is the petitioner's case that after
retirement, she has confined herself to
social life, also devoting time to better the
life of fellow citizens. As part of her
credentials, the petitioner says that she
worked with the University for 39 yeas. It
is the petitioner's case that she has come to
know that the District Magistrate, Varanasi
in disregard of the law has allocated land
belonging
to
the
University
vide
a
registered lease deed dated September 13,
2022 in favour of the Uttar Pradesh Power
Transmission Corporation for the purpose
of enabling the said Corporation to
establish a huge Electricity Sub-Station on
the University's land. The University
already have a small Sub-Station set up by
the
Corporation
in order
to
ensure
uninterrupted power supply to them.
According to the petitioner, the land that
has been leased out to the U.P. Power
Transmission Corporation by the District
Magistrate through the lease deed in
question is University's land. The District
1 All. Professor Vineeta Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
913
Magistrate
has
neither
authority
nor
jurisdiction to execute the lease deed
aforesaid
in
favour
of
the
Power
Corporation purporting to act in the
Governor's
name.
The
University
Authorities are silent spectators and they
have not taken any steps to prevent the
District Magistrate from granting lease of
University's land to the Power Corporation.

3. According to the petitioner, the
University's land that has been leased out to
the Corporation by the District Magistrate
is one which the University alone can
manage or deal with. It is to be utilized for
future expansion of the University. The
Executive Council of the University is the
competent body to take a decision in the
mater, but the Executive Council and the
Vice-Chancellor of the University have not
taken any step to prevent unauthorized
utilization of University land, without the
University's consent or permission, for the
purpose of establishment of a Sub-Station
by the Power Corporation.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel
for the petitioner in support of the writ
petition, purporting to one in public interest,
at length.

5. According to the learned Counsel for
the petitioner, the action of the District
Magistrate in executing a lease deed for the
purpose of setting up an Electricity SubStation by the Power Corporation leads to
diminishing the area of the University as
defined under Section 2(3) of the Uttar
Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (for
short, ''the Act'). He submits that this can only
be
done
according
to
the
procedure
prescribed under Section 4(4) of the Act,
which mandates that the decision to diminish
the area of the University can be taken by the
State Government by Notification in the
Gazette and that can be done according to the
proviso to sub-Section (4) of Section 4 of the
Act, with the previous approval by resolution
of both House of the State Legislature.

6. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has impressed upon the Court that
it is not just that the State Government can
take a decision to diminish the area of the
University or any other Universities by the
Act, and can do so by Notification in the
Gazette. The State Government's decision of
this kind has to be approved first by
resolutions passed by both Houses of the
State Legislature, whereafter alone the
decision of the State Government can be
notified by publication in the Gazette.

7. Here, the decision has not at all be
taken in the manner envisaged by the Statute,
according to the learned Counsel. It is a
decision simply taken by the Collector acting
in the Governor's name, which is ultra vires
Section 4(4) of the Act. Sub-Sections (1-A)
and 4 of Section 4 as also Section 5 of the Act
are quoted below:

"4.
Establishment
of
new
Universities and alteration of the areas or
names of Universities.--(1) x x x x

(1-A) With effect from such date or
dates as the State Government may by
notification in the Gazette appoint in this
behalf, there shall be established--

(a) a University of Bundelkhand at
Jhansi;

(b) a University of Avadh at
Ayodhya which shall be called the Doctor
Ram Manohar Lohia University, Ayodhya
with effect from June 18, 1994, and the
Doctor
Ram
Manohar
Lohia
Avadh
University, Ayodhya with effect from July 11,
1995;

(c) a University of Rohilkhand at
Bareilly which shall with effect from the
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
date of the commencement of the Uttar
Pradesh
State
Universities
(Second
Amendment) Act, 1997 be called Mahatma
Jyotiba
Phule
Rohilkhand
University,
Bareilly;

(d) a University to be known as
Purvanchal University at Jaunpur, which
shall, with effect from the date of
commencement of the Uttar Pradesh State
Universities (Amendment) Act, 1999, be
called "Vir Bahadur Singh Purvanchal
University, Jaunpur;

(e) a University to be known as
the Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti Language
University, Lucknow;

(f) a University to be known as
Siddharth University, Kapilvastu, Siddharth
Nagar;

(g) a University to be known as
Professor Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya)
University, Prayagraj;

(h) a University to be known as
Jananayak
Chandrashekhar
University,
Ballia;

(i) a University to be known as
Maa Shakumbhari University, Saharanpur;

(j) a University to be known as
Maharaja Suhel Dev State University,
Azamgarh;

(k) a University to be known a
Raja
Mahendra
Pratap
Singh
State
University, Aligarh;

for
the
areas
respectively
specified in the Schedule.

(4) The State Government may,
by notification in the Gazette--

(a) increase the area of a
University;

(b) diminish the area of a
University; or

(c) alter the name of a University:

Provided that no such notification
shall be issued except with the previous
approval by resolution, of both the Houses
of the State Legislature.

"5.
Territorial
exercise
of
powers.--(1) Save as otherwise provided by
or under this Act, the powers conferred on
each
University
(other
than
the
Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya)
shall be exercisable in respect of the area for
the time being specified against it in the
Schedule.

(2) The Sampurnanand Sanskrit
Vishvavidyalaya may affiliate institutions
situated in any part of the territory of India
and recognize teachers of, and admit to its
examinations candidates from such territory
or abroad:

Provided that the Vishvavidyalaya
shall not--

(a) affiliate an institution outside
Uttar Pradesh; or

(b)
recognize
any
teacher
employed in an institution situated outside
Uttar Pradesh and maintained by any
Government;

except upon the recommendation
of the Government concerned.

(3) & (4) x x x

(5)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained
in
sub-section
(1)
the
homoeopathic educational or instructional
institutions throughout Uttar Pradesh may be
affiliated to the Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar
University, Agra or Chhatrapati] Shahu Ji
Maharaj University, Kanpur.

(6)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1)
of Section 37, the institutions established or
proposed to be established for imparting
education or instruction in Western Medical
Science as defined in the Indian Medical
Degrees Act, 1916, engineering technology
or management anywhere in Uttar Pradesh
may, subject to such directions as may be
issued by the State Government in this
behalf, be affiliated to any University.

(7)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-section (1) the power
1 All. Professor Vineeta Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
915
conferred on the Khwaja Moinuddin
Chishti Language University, Lucknow in
respect of education and research of Indian
and foreign languages and advancement
and dissemination of knowledge thereof
shall be exercisable throughout the State of
Uttar Pradesh."

8. The Schedule appended to the Act,
which defines the areas within which the
University, as it is called by the Statute,
through the Schedule exercise jurisdiction,
is extracted below:

9. Upon hearing the learned Counsel
for the petitioner and the learned Counsel
appearing for the respondents, we find that
a conjoint reading of Section 2(3), Section
4(1-A), 4(4) and 5 of the Act, along with
the Schedule appended to the Act, do not
spare a shadow of doubt that the ''area of
the University' referred to in Section 2(3)
has no reference at all to the dimensions of
the University campus. It has nothing to do
at all with the land area, whereon the
University is established. Instead, the area
of the University clearly means the area
within which the University has affiliating
powers or other powers mentioned in the
Act.

10. The endeavour of the petitioner to
say that the ''area of the University' means
the land area of its campus, which cannot
be diminished contrary to Section 4(4) of
the Act, is thoroughly misconceived. Upon
the fact being pointed out to the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, he had no
convincing answer, but persisted in his
endeavour to say upon instructions received
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from the petitioner that what is meant by
''area of the University' under Section 2(3)
of the Act, is the land, whereon the campus
is located.

11. We are of opinion that the petition
is not only one that is thoroughly
misconceived, but has been instituted by
the petitioner for some extraneous purpose.
She is a retired Professor of the University
and apparently has nothing to do with the
campus, except some scores to settle. There
is no public interest at all involved in the
petition on merits as well, inasmuch as the
establishment of a big Sub-Station would
cater to the interest of the University as
well, besides other areas. We also noticed
upon a perusal of the lease deed that the
land, whereon the Sub-Station has been
established is Government land and for that
reason, the lease deed has been executed by
the Collector on behalf of the Governor for
a period of 29 years, 11 months and 29
days in favour of the Power Corporation.

12. The petition, being thoroughly
misconceived and lacking bona fides,
deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.
It is, accordingly, dismissed imposing cost
of Rs. 50,000/- upon the petitioner, which if
not deposited within a month in the
Account
of
the
Registrar
General,
Allahabad High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre, shall be recovered by
the District Magistrate, Varanasi as arrears
of land revenue and caused to be credited
in the account aforesaid.

13. Let this order be communicated to
the District Magistrate, Varanasi by the
Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 916
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1989

Digamber Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S.D.N. Singh, Sri Abhinav Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 357- Compensation- The
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section
4 & 5 - Proportionate Sentence- The
charge under Section 323/34 and 325/34
IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt
against accused Digamber Singh and
Dhanpal Singh- Considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case as well
as keeping in view the position of law as
mentioned above and considering that the
incident had taken place about 39 years
back; the incident was occurred in spur of
the
moment;
and
considering
the
provisions of Section 4 & 5 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 it
appears
justified
that
the
appellants
accused Digamber Singh and Dhanpal
Singh be released under Section 4 (1) of
the Act on probation- Each appellant is
directed to deposit Rs. 5000/- within a
period of one month from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order as
compensation which shall be paid to
injured.

Though the charges against the appellants
stand proved but as a long time has elapsed
since the commission of the offence, the same
having occurred on the spur of the moment and
was the first offence of the appellants hence
ends of justice shall be met by providing just
compensation to the victims. (Para 17, 24, 26)