IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1862 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.32148/2010]

ZAFRUDDIN KHAN ...APPELLANT  

vs.

ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY &  ORS.

...RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

Leave granted.  Heard.

2. The appellant filed a Public Interest Litigation in  

the Allahabad High Court for a declaration that the decision  

of the Aligarh Muslim University (‘AMU’ for short), the first  

respondent herein, to establish special campus centres across  

India was illegal and for a direction to the said University  

not  to  establish  a  campus  at  Chelemala  at  Perinthalmanna  

Mallapuram Kerala. The appellant relied upon Section 5(9A) of  

the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 in support of his  

contentions.  The  said  petition  was  resisted  by  the  

respondents inter alia on the ground that appellant had no  

locus  standi  to  file  such  a  petition  and  justifying  the  

action by relying upon Section 12(2) of the said Act.

3. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the High  

Court by the impugned order dated 7.10.2010 on the ground  

that the appellant does not have any locus standi to file  

such public interest litigation. The High Court was of the  

view  that  only  a  Member  of  the  University  Senate  or  

University Academic Council or University Court could file a  

writ petition for the reliefs sought by the appellant. The  

High Court was also of the view that the fundamental rights  

of the appellant were not affected by the proposed action of  

the  University  and  therefore,  the  writ  petition  was  not  

maintainable. The High Court consequently dismissed the writ  

petition  with an  observation that  if any  aggrieved person  

having a locus files a proper petition, the dismissal of the  

appellant's  petition  will  not  come  in  the  way  of  such  

petition being entertained. The said order is challenged in  

this appeal by special leave.

4. The appellant has pointed out that apart from being a  

Member of the Bar, he is a former President of the Student  

Union of the AMU, former elected Member of AMU Court, Life  

Member of AMU Old Boys Association and Donor Life Member of  

the AMU. He had produced documents in support of the said  

averments. The said averments are not shown to be false. The  

appellant claims that his only interest in filing the writ  

petition  was  to  ensure  that  AMU  continues  to  be  an  

2

Institution of academic excellence and that no action of the  

University  should  dilute  its  academic  excellence.  On  the  

other hand, the respondents contend that the writ petition  

was  filed  with  the  oblique  motive  of  maligning  the  Vice  

Chancellor of the University. It is not necessary to examine  

that aspect now.

5. We are of the view that having regard to the fact that  

the appellant was a former student and elected Member of AMU  

Court and is also a Donor Life Member, he has sufficient  

interest to file the writ petition in public interest. The  

High Court ought not to have dismissed the public interest  

litigation only on the ground of locus standi of appellant to  

file the writ petition.

6. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order  

of the High Court and restore the public interest litigation  

to the file of the High Court without expressing any opinion  

on the merits of the case. The respondents will be entitled  

to contest the writ petition by urging all contentions open  

to  them  in  law,  including  the  contention  relating  to  the  

alleged malafides of the appellant.

  ......................J.             ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

3

New Delhi;      .....................J. February 14, 2011.                   ( A.K. PATNAIK )

4