# Vigyan Parishad & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 832
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-31
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 22688 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vigyan-parishad-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-49539
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Indian Easements Act, 1882 -
Section 60(b) - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Central Universities Act,
2009 - Section 5 - License Agreement -
Revocation of License - Commercial Misuse of
Premises - Audi Alteram Partem - Due Process
of Law - Eviction

The petitioners, Vigyan Parishad (a registered
society) and its General Secretary, challenged
the order dated 04.07.2023 and Resolution No.
07/75 dated 20.06.2023 passed by Allahabad
University, directing them to vacate the Vigyan
Bhavan premises due to commercial misuse,
including renting to the U.P. Chamber of
Commerce and Industries and using it as a
banquet hall, in violation of the 1953 license
agreement for scientific activities in Hindi. The
petitioners admitted to commercial activities
during the COVID-19 pandemic due to financial
constraints but claimed they ceased such
activities post-notice and argued the license was
irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian
Easements Act, 1882, due to permanent
construction. They also contended no proper
notice or hearing was provided, and eviction
required separate legal proceedings. Held: (1)
The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of
merit. (2) The license was revocable under the
1953 agreement, as it explicitly allowed eviction
within six months if the petitioners deviated
from approved aims (scientific activities in
Hindi), per Clause 2(v), and the building
remained university property, per Clause 2(ii).
(3)
The
petitioners'
commercial
activities,
12 All. Vigyan Parishad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
833
admitted in their reply dated 29.03.2023,
violated the license terms, justifying revocation,
and no prior university approval was sought,
negating their defense. (4) The absence of a
formal hearing did not invalidate the eviction
order, as the petitioners' admission of misuse
rendered audi alteram partem an empty
formality, and no prejudice was established, per
St. of U.P. Vs Sudhir Kumar Singh. (5) Section
60(b) of the Easements Act, 1882, did not apply,
as the license's express terms made it revocable
despite permanent construction, per Ram Sarup
Gupta Vs Bishun Narain Inter College, Ganga
Sahai Vs Badrul Islam, Chotey Lal Vs Mt. Durga
Bai, and Bhagwauna Vs Sheikh Anwaruzzaman.
(6) No separate legal proceedings were required
for eviction, as the judicial adjudication in the
writ petition satisfied the "due process of law"
requirement, per Thomas Cook (India) Limited
Vs Hotel Imperial and Maria Margarida Seqeria
Fernandes Vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria. (7) The
court directed the petitioners to hand over
possession, as their case lacked merit, and the
university's resolution to form a new publication
committee aligned with its objectives under
Section 5 of the Central Universities Act, 2009.

Case Law cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,933 of 68,967. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39933 for what follows._

832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that any observation made by this Court
while deciding the present petition, arising
out
of
mutation
proceedings,
would
prejudice the case of the parties in a suit
before the regular court claiming rights
over the land/property in issue and further,
the affect of entertaining this petition
challenging the orders passed in mutation
proceedings, would be that the dispute
regarding rights/title over the land in issue
would not be decided for undetermined
period.

35. Accordingly, present petition is
disposed of with liberty to petitioners to
file regular suit claiming rights over the
land/property in issue.

36. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, as indicated above, particularly
the copy of Khasra of the fasli year 14191426 (C.E. 2012-2019), which prima facie
indicates that the petitioners are in
possession, as also to avoid the further
litigation with regard to property in issue
i.e. Gata No. 1609 Ka area 0.280 hect.,
which can be on account of transfer,
alienation or by creating charge over the
land/property in issue, it is provided that
parties shall maintain status-quo, as exists
today, for a period of six months, in which
period
a
regular
suit
alongwith
an
application seeking interim protection can
be instituted before the competent court of
jurisdiction.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 832
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.
Writ-C No. 22688 of 2023

Vigyan Parishad & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri Nitinjay Pandey, Sri
Utkarsh
Tripathi,
Sri
Rakesh
Pande
(Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, Sri Kunal Shah,
Sri Saumitra Singh, Sri Amit Saxena (Sr.
Advocate)

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Indian Easements Act, 1882 -
Section 60(b) - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Central Universities Act,
2009 - Section 5 - License Agreement -
Revocation of License - Commercial Misuse of
Premises - Audi Alteram Partem - Due Process
of Law - Eviction

The petitioners, Vigyan Parishad (a registered
society) and its General Secretary, challenged
the order dated 04.07.2023 and Resolution No.
07/75 dated 20.06.2023 passed by Allahabad
University, directing them to vacate the Vigyan
Bhavan premises due to commercial misuse,
including renting to the U.P. Chamber of
Commerce and Industries and using it as a
banquet hall, in violation of the 1953 license
agreement for scientific activities in Hindi. The
petitioners admitted to commercial activities
during the COVID-19 pandemic due to financial
constraints but claimed they ceased such
activities post-notice and argued the license was
irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian
Easements Act, 1882, due to permanent
construction. They also contended no proper
notice or hearing was provided, and eviction
required separate legal proceedings. Held: (1)
The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of
merit. (2) The license was revocable under the
1953 agreement, as it explicitly allowed eviction
within six months if the petitioners deviated
from approved aims (scientific activities in
Hindi), per Clause 2(v), and the building
remained university property, per Clause 2(ii).
(3)
The
petitioners'
commercial
activities,
12 All. Vigyan Parishad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
833
admitted in their reply dated 29.03.2023,
violated the license terms, justifying revocation,
and no prior university approval was sought,
negating their defense. (4) The absence of a
formal hearing did not invalidate the eviction
order, as the petitioners' admission of misuse
rendered audi alteram partem an empty
formality, and no prejudice was established, per
St. of U.P. Vs Sudhir Kumar Singh. (5) Section
60(b) of the Easements Act, 1882, did not apply,
as the license's express terms made it revocable
despite permanent construction, per Ram Sarup
Gupta Vs Bishun Narain Inter College, Ganga
Sahai Vs Badrul Islam, Chotey Lal Vs Mt. Durga
Bai, and Bhagwauna Vs Sheikh Anwaruzzaman.
(6) No separate legal proceedings were required
for eviction, as the judicial adjudication in the
writ petition satisfied the "due process of law"
requirement, per Thomas Cook (India) Limited
Vs Hotel Imperial and Maria Margarida Seqeria
Fernandes Vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria. (7) The
court directed the petitioners to hand over
possession, as their case lacked merit, and the
university's resolution to form a new publication
committee aligned with its objectives under
Section 5 of the Central Universities Act, 2009.

Case Law cited:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2020)
SCC OnLine SC 847

2. Ram Sarup Gupta Vs Bishun Narain Inter
College, (1987) 2 SCC 555

3. Ganga Sahai Vs Badrul Islam, AIR 1942 All
330

4. Chotey Lal Vs Mt. Durga Bai, AIR 1950 All
661

5. Bhagwauna Vs Sheikh Anwaruzzaman, AIR
1980 All 212

6. Meena Pandey Vs U.O.I.& ors., 2008 SCC
OnLine All 143

7. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. Vs Hotel Imperial,
(2006) 88 DRJ 545

8. Maria Margarida Seqeria Fernandes Vs
Erasmo Jack De Sequeria, (2012) 5 SCC 370

9. Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji Vs Maniben
Jagmalbhai, (2014) SCC OnLine SC 420

10.
G.
Silver
Spoon
Restaurant
and
Entertainments Vs St. of Andhra Pradesh, 2002
SCC OnLine AP 143

11. Muhammad Ziaul Hague Vs Standard
Vacuum Oil Company, 55 Calcutta Weekly Notes
232

12. East India Hotels Ltd. Vs Syndicate Bank,
1992 Supp (2) SCC 29

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J. & Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. The petitioner no.1 Vigyan
Parishant is a society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. The
petitioner no.2 is a General Secretary of the
petitioner no.1.

2. According to the petitioners, the
Vigyan
Parishad
was
founded
on
10.03.1913 by four renowned scholars of
Muir Central College (now the University
of Allahabad) with the object of developing
scientific activities in Hindi. The then
Principal of Muir Central College Mr. J.P.
Hennings provided a place for opening an
office for petitioner no.1. For this purpose a
resolution dated 27.01.1953 was passed by
the Executive Council of the University,
which is quoted hereunder:-

"ITEM NO.41 OF THE EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL1

Report
of
the
meeting
of
the
Committee appointed by the Executive
Council its resolution No.118, dated April
5, 1952 to consider the question of the
construction
of
a
"Prayag
Vishwa
Vidyalaya Vigyan Bhavan" in the Muir
Central College Premises, held on January
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27,
1953
in
the
Vice-Chancellor's
Chambers, Senate House, Allahabad.

Member Present

Dr.
Babu
Ram
Saksena
Prof Saligram Bhargava

Dr.
Parmanand
Dr. Satya Prakash

Dr.
Gorukh
Prasad
Dr. Mirendra Varma

The Vice-Chancellor nominated Dr.
Babu Ram Saksena to take the chair as he
was busy otherwise.

The committee considered the
question of the construction of a "Prayag
Vishva Vidyalaya Vigyan Bhavan" the Muir
Central
College
premises
for
the
development of scientific activities in Hindi
in all its aspects.

1. The Committee recommends that the
offer of the Vigyana Parishad provide funds
for the building of a Vigyan Bhavan on the
grounds the M.C. College at an estimated
cost of not less than 15,000 housing the
offices etc. of the Parishad, be accepted
and the Parishad be permitted to erect the
proposed building by an agency of its
choice.

2. The Committee suggests that the
Parishad be permitted to occupy the
building when constructed on the following
conditions-

i. That the building shall be
constructed on a plan approved by the
University.

ii. That the building shall be the
property of the University and shall be
named Vigyan Bhavan.

iii. That the building shall be
allowed to be occupied and used by the
Vigyan Parishad for so long as it continues
to function with its present aims and
objects or with such other aims and objects
as might be approved by the university.

iv. That the building shall be kept
in good condition and repair by the Vigyan
Parishad at its own cost.

v. That in case the Parishad
adopts aims and objects which the
University does not approve of it shall
vacate the premises within six months of
receiving
notice
to
this
effect
from
University.

3. The Committee recommends that the
University should make over a donations or
funds that it may receive a collect for the
purpose of the Vigyan Bhavan to the Vigyan
Parishant.

4. The Committee recommends that the
officer or a donation of 1000/ from Dr.
Satya Prakash for the purpose be accepted
and transfrred as above, and that the
University should have no objection to the
building or a part of it being named after a
donor making a gift of a substantial
amount.

5. In the Committee's option the site to
the South-West of the Muslim Hostel, east
of the South-East gate of the M.C. College
and adjoining the Thornhil Road, is
suitable for the Vgyan Bhavan."

3. Plain reading of Clause 2 (ii) of the
aforesaid resolution lays that the building
made by the Parishad shall be the property
of the Univertisy and shall be known as
Vigyan Bhawan. Clause 2 (iii) lays that the
building shall be allowed to be occupied
and used by the Vigyan Parishad for so
long as it continues to function with its
present aims and objects or with such other
aims and objects as might be approved by
the university. Clause 2 (v) of the resolution
of the Executive Council lays that in case
the Parishad adopts aims and objects which
12 All. Vigyan Parishad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
835
the University does not approve of, it shall
vacate the premises within six months of
receiving notice to this effect from the
University.

4. After the resolution was passed and
the land was handed over to the Parishad,
the Parishad set up a building and started to
pursue the aims and objects for which the
Parishad was created and the land was
allotted to them.

5. The present office bearers of the
petitioner no.1 realising the location and
potential of the building started misusing
and rented out a part of the premises to a
commercial entity to earn profit from the
said building. Apart from this commercial
activity, it is alleged by the respondents that
the petitioners have started renting out the
other portion for various other commercial
activities, which has nothing to do with the
aims and objects of the Parishad nor had
any permission from the University to do
so.

6. On inspection by the University
authorities it was found that the petitioners
were indulging in illegal commercial
activities renting the part of the premises,
and also using the property as banquet hall
for organizing parties and events instead of
carrying on the activities for which the land
was allotted to them. Thereafter, the
respondent no.3 issued a notice to the
petitioner on 23.02.2023, pointing out the
illegal use of the premises. on 23.02.2023.
This notice is as follows:-

पत्रांकः 4781/ए०मै०/2023 ड़दनांक 23.03.2023

डा० ड़शविोपाल ड़मश्र,

प्रधानमंत्री, ड़वज्ञान पररषद, प्रयाि,

महड़षट दयानन्द मािट, प्रयािराज-211002 (उ०प्र०)

ड़वषयः ड़वज्ञान पररषद भवन में व्यवसाड़यक िड़तड़वड़धयों
को रोकने के सम्बन्ध में।

कृपया अवित हो ड़क माननीय कायटपररषद के संकल्प
सं० 118ड़दनांक 05 अप्रैल, 1952 की संस्तुड़त पर आपको
ड़वश्वड़वद्यालय द्वारा ड़वज्ञान पररषद के ड़नमाटण एवं ड़वज्ञान के
प्रचार प्रसार हेतु ड़नधाटररत शतो पर ड़वश्वड़वद्यालय की भूड़म को
प्रदान ड़कया िया था।

ड़वश्वड़वद्यालय के सक्षम अड़धकाररयों के द्वारा मौके पर
ड़नरीक्षण ड़कया िया एवं ड़वश्वड़वद्यालय में उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों से
ज्ञात हुआ ड़क आप द्वारा ड़वज्ञान पररषद के भवन में शैक्षड़णक
िड़तड़वड़धयों का संचालन न करके भवन का उपयोि व्यवसाड़यक
िड़तड़वड़धयों के ड़लए ड़कया जा रहा है जो ड़क माननीय
कायटपररषद के पाररत संकल्प का उलंघन है।

उक्त के आलोक में आपको सूड़चत ड़कया जा रहा है ड़क
आप ड़वज्ञान पररषद में व्यवसाड़यक िड़तड़वड़धयों को तत्काल
प्रभाव से बन्द करके अधोहस्ताक्षरी को एक सप्ताह के अन्दर
सूड़चत करने का कष्ट करें।

भवदीय,
 (प्रो० एन०के०शुक्ला)

 कुलसड़चव

प्रड़तड़लड़प- ड़नम्नड़लड़खत को सूचनाथट एवं आवश्चक
कायटवाही हेतु प्रेड़षत।

1- कुलपड़त के सड़चव को कुलपड़त महोदया के सादर
सूचनाथट

2- कुलसड़चव।

3- कुलानुशासक।

4- सुरक्षा अड़धकारी।

(राजीव ड़मश्रा)

सम्पत्ति अत्तिकारी

7. On 29.03.2023 the petitioners replied to
the aforesaid notice. The reply dated
29.03.2023 is quoted hereunder:-

सेवा में,

कुलसड़चव

इलाहाबाद ड़वश्वड़वद्यालय

ड़वषयः ड़वज्ञान पररषद् प्रयाि के भवन के शैक्षड़णक उपयोि
के संबंध में
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

सन्दभटः आपका पत्र संख्या 4781/ए.मै./2023, ड़दनांक
23.03.2023

महोदय,

आपको उपरोक्त संदड़भटत पत्र के संबंध में ड़नवेदन है
ड़क ड़वज्ञान पररषद् भवन का उपयोि शैक्षड़णक िड़तड़वड़धयों के ड़लये
ही होता रहा है।

ड़कन्तु कोरोना की अवड़ध में शैक्षड़णक िड़तड़वड़धयााँ
बन्द हो जाने के कारण हमें आड़थटक कड़ठनाईयााँ हुई और हमने
सीड़मत संख्या में कुछ अन्य कायों के ड़लए भी पररसर का उपयोि
करने ड़दया था।

हमने भड़वष्य में होने वाली सभी अन्य िड़तड़वड़धयों
पर रोक लिाते हुए मात्र शैक्षड़णक िड़तड़वड़धयों के ड़लये ड़वज्ञान
पररषद् भवन का उपयोि करना आरंभ कर ड़दया है।

हम आपको आश्वस्त करते हैं ड़क भड़वष्य में ड़वज्ञान
पररषद् पररसर का उपयोि मात्र शैक्षड़णक िड़तड़वड़धयों के ड़लए ही
होिा।

सादर

भवदीय

(डॉ. ड़शविोपाल ड़मश्र)
प्रिानमंत्री

The reply itself is clear that the
petitioners had admitted of carrying on
other commercial activities in the said
premises and rented it to the U.P. Chamber
of
Commerce
Industries,
which
was
allotted for a particular reason. They further
agreed to comply the aims and objects of
the Parishad in future. This letter itself is a
clear admission of the petitioners that they
had indulged in commercial activities
which was not allowed as per resolution
dated 27.01.1953 by which land was
allotted to the petitioners.

8. The petitioners claim that on
04.04.2023, they have sent a notice to the
President/Secretary, Eastern U.P. Chamber
of Commerce and Industries to vacate the
premisses. The petitioners further
in
paragraph 12 of the writ petition admitted
that they have been carrying out the
commercial activities, in the said building,
but now they are stopped all type of
commercial activities and have cancelled
the future bookings.

9.

The
Executive
Council
of
respondent no.2, Allahabad University had
passed a resolution no.07/75 on 20.06.2023
asking them to vacate the said premises,
this was communicated to the petitioners
04.07.2023, (Comm.Sec.2023/1832), which
is impugned herein. In response to the said
notice, the petitioners had sent their
representation on 07.07.2023. Thereafter,
the petitioners filed instant writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India with the following reliefs:-

"A) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order No.Comm.Sec./2023/1832
dated 04.07.2023 passed by the respondent
no.3.

B) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari calling for the
records and quashing the Resolution No.-
07/75, dated 20.06.2023 (which is not in
possession of the petitioners) passed by the
respondent no.4.
C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature
of
mandamus
restraining
the
respondent University from undertaking
any action against the petitioners in
pursuance of the impugned order dated
04.07.2023 emerging from the resolution
no.-07/75 dated 20.06.2023."

10. The respondent no.2 filed a short
counter affidavit wherein it was submitted
that the petitioners have violated the terms
and conditions of the allotment of the
premises wherein the petitioners were
supposed to only carry on the activities and
functions for which the land was allotted to
them. Further, they place reliance on the
12 All. Vigyan Parishad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
837
clauses of the agreement, by which with
which the property belonging to the
University was given to the petitioner and,
in case, the petitioners adopt aims and
objects, which are not approved by the
University then the petitioners shall vacate
the premises within six months of receiving
the notice to that effect.

11. The petitioners filed a rejoinder
affidavit wherein they claim that the
impugned order dated 04.07.2023 should
be set aside as they have made the building
on the premises by their own funds and it
was the petitioners, who were supposed to
maintain it. In the year 2014 all kinds of
grants were stopped by the Central
Government and in the Pandemic petitioner
society was in absolute financial crisis so
they have rented the premises to U.P.
Chamber of Commerce and Industry to run
their office, however, after 23.03.2023 the
petitioners have asked to vacate the
premises, and all the other commercial
activities carried out in the said premises
have been stopped.

12. Mr. Rakesh Pande, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Nitinjay Pandey
appearing on behalf of the petitioners has
raised the following issues:-

A. No opportunity of hearing was
given, nor any notice of six months was
ever given to the petitioners in terms of
clause 2 (v) of the resolution of the
Executive Council dated 27.01.1953. He
submitted that even going by the terms of
the license, it was mandatory on the
respondent no.2 to have issued a notice to
the petitioners giving them six months as
was laid down in the terms of the license.
All the letters sent by the University on
04.10.2018, 19.11.2018 and 19.07.2019 can
not be treated as show cause notice as they
were only letters requesting the petitioners
to produce the documentary evidence
regarding resolution of the University
creating license in favour of the petitioners.
The last notice of 23.03.2023 was also not
a show cause notice for cancellation of
license or vacating the premises. It was
merely a direction on the petitioners to stop
the alleged commercial activities and the
same was immediately stopped.

B. The petitioners having not changed
its aims and objects and the University
having not disapproved the subsequent
conduct of the petitioners by which he has
rented out the premises to U.P. Chamber of
Commerce and Industry, no occasion arose
for the respondent no.2 (University) to pass
the order impugned to vacate the premises.
It was out of the necessity during the
Covid-19 Pandemic where the activities of
the petitioners were obstructed, because of
the economic difficulties and it was for a
limited number of time where the campus
had
been
used
for
other
activities.
However, an assurance was given that the
petitioners would put the campus back to
the educational activities for which the
premises had been allotted to them. The
impugned order to vacate the premises is
actually in the teeth of the resolution of the
University dated 27.01.1953.

C. The University vide its letter dated
23.03.2023 had only directed cessation of
activities for which the petitioners had
given a suitable reply and all the activities,
which were objected by the University has
been closed. Therefore, the University
could not have directed the petitioners to
vacate the said premises.

D. The license granted by the
respondent
no.2
has
been
rendered
irrevocable as per mandate of Section 60
(b) of Easement Act, 1882. The revocation
of license would not be permissible as a
licensee acting upon the license had
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
executed work of a permanent character
and incurred expenses in execution.

E. The University can only evict the
petitioners
by
instituting
a
separate
proceedings in a Court of law for taking
back the possession of the petitioners.

13.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners further submits that it was
during the outbreak of Covid-19, the
activities of the petitioner was obstructed
due to economic difficulty for a limited
period of time, the building had been used
for other activities, which was later
stopped. He further submits that the
activities of the petitioners society were in
consonance of the aims and objects of the
society and it was callous to order the
society to vacate the premises only for
alleged commercial use of the building
during the pandemic. It is admitted by the
petitioners that some portion of the
building which was rented (to the U.P.
Chamber of Commerce and Industry)
would not amount to change of aims and
objects of the society calling for the
eviction by invoking terms and conditions
of the license. He has relied on a judgement
of Delhi High Court in the case of Thomas
Cook
(India)
Limited
vs.
Hotel
Imperial2.

14.

Mr. Amit
Saxena,
Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Kunal Shah
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.2
to 5 had given a categorical reply to each
and every averments raised by the counsel
for the petitioners. The reply of the
respondents are as follows:-

A. The averments of the petitioners
that no opportunity of hearing was given to
them neither any notice was given to them
is completely baseless. The terms of the
license does not envisage any opportunity
of hearing prior to passing of the order of
eviction. It is trite law that mere fact that
the
petitioner
was
not
afforded
an
opportunity of hearing before passing the
impugned order would not render the
impugned order illegal, until and unless the
petitioner pleads and proves that because of
non-grant of opportunity of hearing his
case got prejudiced. It is no longer resintegra, that in case there is admission of
facts on part of the party against whom the
order has been passed, the order would not
be invalidated on account of non-adherence
to the principles of audi alteram partem as
the same would be only an empty formality.
In the entire writ petition, there is not even
a whisper of the prejudice that has ensued
upon the petitioners by not granting an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Further, it has been admitted by the
petitioners that they have breached the
terms of the license and had misused the
premises for carrying out commercial
activities, which was not the aims and
objects for which the premises was given to
them.

B. In response to the averment of the
petitioners that the University has not
disapproved the subsequent conduct of the
petitioners and, hence, no occasion arose
for
passing
the
impugned
order,
is
absolutely baseless and misconceived. The
respondent further submits that no such
contention
has
been
raised
by
the
petitioners in the writ petition or by way of
supplementary affidavit but has only argued
during the course of hearing. From the
terms of the grant, it is discernible that the
purpose for which the premises was let out
to the Petitioner was for propagation and
development of scientific activities through
the medium of the vernacular language,
i.e., Hindi. Sub-Clause iii of Clause 2 of the
12 All. Vigyan Parishad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
839
terms of the grant postulates that the
petitioner shall be allowed to occupy and
use the premises only for so long as it
continues to function with its present aims
and objects or which such other aims and
objects which the Answering Respondent
may approve. Moreover, Sub-Clause v of
Clause 2 of the terms of the grant provides
that in case the Petitioner adopts aims and
objects, which the University does not
approve of it the Petitioner shall vacate the
premises within six months. The Petitioner
could have used the premises only for the
aforesaid purposes and no other purpose. In
case the Petitioner wanted to use the
premises for any other purpose, the
Petitioner ought to have sought approval
from the University. The same is evident on
a bare perusal of Sub-Clause iii of Clause 2
of the terms and conditions of the grant.

Further by using the expression
"present aims and objects" in clause 2 (ii)
of the terms and conditions of the grant, it
has been made crystal clear that the
Parishad would use the premises only for
its present purposes, viz., propagation and
development of scientific activities through
the medium of the vernacular language.
The said object was set out in the grant
itself. In order to ascertain whether the
Petitioner has deviated from the terms of
the grant or not, the only thing which is to
be seen is whether the Petitioner has in the
premises let out to it, carried out any
activity different from the one for which it
had been let out. The fact as to whether any
changes have been made in the bye- laws
of the Petitioner's Society as regards its
aims and objects are not relevant to the
controversy involved herein. During the
course of the arguments, it was also
contented by the Petitioner that the
University never disapproved the conduct
of the Petitioner in utilizing the premises
for a purpose different than the one for
which it was let out. The aforesaid
contention of the Petitioner is not liable to
be accepted on account of the following
reasons:

(i) As per Sub-Clause iii of Clause 2 of
the terms of the grant, the Petitioner could
have used the premises only for the purpose
set out in the Grant itself. In case the
Petitioner desired to use the premise for
any other purpose, the Petitioner ought to
have sought approval of the University.
Thus, in light of the fact that no approval
was sought by the Petitioner from the
University before utilizing the premises for
commercial activities, no question of
disapproving the conduct of the Petitioner
arose.
(ii) Secondly, the contention of the
Petitioner that the University did not
disapprove the conduct of the Petitioner in
utilizing the premises for commercial
purposes is also factually incorrect. By
letter dated 23.03.2023 the Registrar of the
University had conveyed the Petitioners
that the Petitioners are carrying out
commercial activities which is not in tune
with the terms of the grant. Thereafter, once
the
Petitioner
vide
its
letter
dated
29.03.2023 admitted the fact that it has
carried out activities not in consonance
with the terms of the grant, the Executive
Council of the University seeing the misuse
of the premises vide its resolution no.7/75
dated 20.06.2023 unanimously resolved to
get the premises vacated from the petitioner
and to form a New Publication Committee,
that would henceforth undertake the
exercise of publishing the journals. The
respondent no.2, University was set up in
the year 1887 and was known as Muir
Central College. With the promulgation of
University of Allahabad Act, 19213 later it
became State University. At that point of
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
time, the entire medium of education was
Engligh.
In
order
to
develop
and
disseminate the scientific activities in
Hindi, Vigyan Parishad was set up to do the
same.
After
enactment
of
Central
Universities
Act,
2009,
Allahabad
University became a Central University. As
per Section 5 of the Central Universities
Act the object of the University was to
disseminate the knowledge by providing
instructional and research facility in such
branches of learning as may it deem fit in
the
courses
of
Humanity
Science
Technology etc. and to take appropriate
measures in promoting innovation in
teaching and learning process and entire
disciplinary studies and research to educate
the trained manpower. In pursuance of the
objects of the University as per Central
Universities Act, the respondent no.2 has
taken a decision to form a New Publication
Committee to carry out the dissemination
and development of scientific activities in
Hindi, which is same work the petitioners
were supposed to do.

C. In response to the aforesaid
averment, the counsel for the respondent
states that on acquiring the information that
the petitioner has in derogation to the terms
and conditions carried out commercial
activities in the premises, the Registrar of
the University as an immediate measure
directed cessation of such activities. By the
said letter, the University did not condone
the breach, and by no means can it be said
that the University waived off its right to
get
the
premises
vacated
from
the
petitioner.

Further, the aforesaid letter has been
issued by the Registrar of the University,
who in his limited capacity could only
direct cessation of activities. When the
entire matter was placed before the
Executive Council of the University, the
body which had granted permission to the
petitioner to occupy the premises subject to
certain terms and conditions set out in the
grant itself, the same seeing the misuse of
the premises vide its resolution no.7/75
dated 20.06.2023 unanimously resolved to
get
the
premises
vacated
from
the
petitioner. Pursuant to aforesaid resolution
dated 20.06.2023 of the Executive Council
of the University, the impugned order dated
04.07.2023 was issued, thus no question of
condoning the breach arises.

D. In response to the averment , the
learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the license granted to the petitioner
pursuant to which the petitioner asserts to
have raised construction of the building and
to have incurred expenses would not render
the license irrevocable, in as much as the
express terms of the grant make it a
revocable one. It is trite law that even if the
conditions stipulated in Clause (b) of
Section 60 of Easement Act, 1881 is
attracted, the same would not render the
license irrevocable if a per the terms of the
grant, the nature of such grant is revocable.
As such Clause (b) of Section 60 of the Act
would not incur any benefit to the
petitioner.

E. In response to the averment, learned
counsel for the respondent submits that the
contention of the petitioner is absolutely
misconceived and is liable to be rejected.
The petitioner has raised varied arguments
assailing the validity of the impugned
order. The petitioner has invited a judicial
pronouncement and once this Hon'ble
Court finds that the case set up by the
petitioner lacks merit and is liable to be
rejected, the requirement of 'due process"
of law stands fulfilled and the answering
respondent would then not be compelled to
12 All. Vigyan Parishad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
841
institute a separate proceeding for taking
back the possession from the petitioner,
rather this Hon'ble Court itself would pass
orders directing the petitioner to hand over
the possession of the premises. It is trite
law that it does not matter as to who has
instituted the proceedings. Even if a
person files a writ petition praying that
the
respondents
be
refrained
from
interfering with their possession and this
Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion
that the case set up by the petitioner is
not tenable in the eyes of law, this
Hon'ble
Court
would
in
the
writ
proceedings itself direct the petitioners to
hand over the possession of the premises
to the answering respondent.

15. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

16. The relevant terms and conditions
of the grant in the sacrosanct document that
govern
the
relationship
between
the
petitioners and the Allahabad University
are quoted hereunder:

The
Committee
considered
the
question of construction of a Prayag Vishva
Vidyalaya Bhavan in the Muir Central
College premises for the development of
scientific activities in Hindi in all its
aspects.

2. The Committee suggests that the
Parishad be permitted to occupy the
building on the following conditions-
ii. That the building shall be the property of
the University and shall be named Vigyan
Bhavan.

iii. That the building shall be allowed
to be occupied and used by the Vigyan
Parishad for so long as it continues to
function with its present aims and objects
or with such other aims and objects as
might be approved by the university.

v. That in case the Parishad adopts
aims and objects which the University does
not approve of it shall vacate the premises
within six months of receiving notice to this
effect from University.

17. With regard to the first issue that
no notice and opportunity of hearing was
granted to the petitioners, we hold that as
far as the opportunity of hearing is
concerned, since the grant was in the nature
of license and does not envisage an
opportunity of hearing prior to the passing
of the order of eviction, it is not the case of
the petitioner that in absence of any
opportunity of hearing any of his rights are
being prejudiced. It is clear case of misuse
of property, which has been admitted by the
petitioners.
Technically,
even
if
an
opportunity of hearing is given to the
petitioners, it cannot make their case better.
No prejudice is caused to the petitioners by
not giving them an opportunity of hearing.
It is no longer res-integra as there is an
admission on the part of the petitioners.
The eviction order cannot be invalidated on
account of any adherence to the principles
of audi alteram partem. The entire exercise
would be nothing but an empty formality.

18. Since the petitioner has admitted
the case against him, no prejudice can be
said to have been caused to the petitioner
and, thus, non adherence to the rule of audi
alteram partem would in the facts and
circumstances of the case, not render the
impugned order illegal.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh 4
expounded that breach of audi alteram
partem rule in itself is not sufficient and the
Courts would not interfere until the party
pleads and establish the prejudice that has
been caused to him. The Hon'ble Supreme
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court further held that prejudice can never
be said to be caused to the person
complaining of the breach of natural justice
where such person does not dispute the
case against him or it. The relevant extract
of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court rendered in Sudhir Kumar Singh
(supra) is being reproduced herein-below
for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble
Court:

"42. An analysis of the aforesaid
judgements thus reveals:-

42.1. Natural justice is a flexible tool
in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in
fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of
the audi alteram partem rule cannot by
itself, without more, lead to the conclusion
that prejudice is hereby caused.

42.2.
Where
procedural
and/or
substantive provisions of law embody the
principles
of
natural
justice,
their
infraction per se does not lead to invalidity
of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice
must be caused to the litigant, except in the
case of a mandatory provision of law which
is conceived not only in individual interest,
but also in public interest.

42.3. No prejudice is caused to the
person complaining of the breach of
natural justice where such person does not
dispute the case against him or it. This can
happen
by
reason
of
estoppel,
acquiescence, waiver and by way of nonchallenge or non-denial or admission of
facts, in cases in which the Court finds on
facts that no real prejudice can therefore be
said to have been caused to the person
complaining of the breach of natural
justice.

42.4. In cases where facts can be
stated to be admitted or indisputable, and
only one conclusion is possible, the Court
does not pass futile orders of setting aside
or remand when there is, in fact, no
prejudice caused. This conclusion must be
drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the
facts of a case, and not by the authority
who denies natural justice to a person.

42.5. The "prejudice" exception must
be more that a mere apprehension or even
a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It
should exist as a matter of fact, or be based
upon a definite inference of likelihood of
prejudice flowing from the non-observance
of natural justice."

20. Vide resolution of the Executive
Council dated 27.01.1953 the premises was
given to the petitioners was for protection
and development of scientific activities in
Hindi. In terms of the license, the
petitioners could have used the premises
only for the aforesaid purposes and not for
anything else. In case, the petitioners
wanted to use the premises for any other
purposes they ought to have taken approval
from the University. In absence of any
approval the action of the petitioners
amounts to contraventions of the conditions
of the license. Since no approval was
sought
by
the
petitioners
from
the
University before putting the premises to
commercial activities, no question of
justifying the conduct of the petitioners
ever arose.

21. With regard to the second issue
where the petitioners averred that the
University having not disapproved the
subsequent
conduct
of
misusing
the
premises, there was no occasion for the
University to pass the impugned order, we
hold that a bare reading of the resolution of
the Executive Council by which the
premises was given to the petitioner it is
clear that the premises was only to be used
by the petitioner for propagation and
development of scientific activities through
the medium of the vernacular language
12 All. Vigyan Parishad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
843
Clause 2 (iii) postulates that the petitioners
shall be allowed to occupy the said
premises only as long as it continues to
function with its aims and objects or with
such other aims and objects which would
be approved by the University. Clause 2 (v)
postulates that in case, the petitioner adopts
to carry out any other activity, which is
beyond the aims and objects approved by
the University, the petitioner shall vacate
the premises within six months. It is clear
that the premises was given to the
petitioners for a particular purpose and any
deviation
without
approval
of
the
University shall invite eviction of the
petitioner
within
six
months.
The
University had disapproved the illegal
Commercial use of the property and
accordingly, passed a resolution to vacate
the property.

22. With regard to the third issue
where the petitioner alleged that the letter
dated 23.03.2023 was only information to
stop a particular activity, which was
subsequently stopped by them and, hence,
the letter dated 29.03.2023 cannot be the
basis for eviction of the petitioner from the
premises. The reply of the University that
this letter was sent by the Registrar of the
University, who had limited capacity and
could only direct the cessation of the
activity where the entire matter was placed
before Executive Council of the University,
who had passed the impugned order asking
the petitioner to vacate the property. There
is nothing wrong with the impugned order
as the same has been passed because the
petitioner had been misusing the premises
by renting it out to the U.P. Chamber of
Commerce and Industry and also renting
the remaining portion of the premises for
other commercial activities, which was way
away from the aims and objects for which
the premises was allotted to the petitioner.

23. In response to the fourth issue
where the petitioner argued that the license
had been rendered irrevocable as per
Section 60 (b) of the Easement Act, 1882,
and hence, the impugned order could not
have been passed. We hold that though the
building was constructed by the petitioners
after grant of license but the terms of the
license were
clear, the license was
revocable if the petitioner carries out any
other activities then for which the premises
was given to them, the license would be
revoked. It is trite law that even if the
conditions stipulated in Clause (b) of
Section 60 of the Easement Act, 1881 is
attracted, the same would not render the
license irrevocable if as per the terms of the
grant, the nature of such grant is revocable.
As such Clause (b) of Section 60 of
Easement Act would not enure any benefit
to the petitioner.

24. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain
Inter College and others5 expounded that
if by the express terms of the grant, the
license has been made revocable, the
licensee cannot claim the benefit of the
Section 60 (b) of the Act, 1882 even if the
conditions set out in Section 60 (b) are
being fulfilled.