The Patna High Court in the case Manoj Kumar vs. The Chancellor of University observed and has dismissed the Public Interest Litigation, PIL filed by a Science Teacher at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (District Garhwa, State of Jharkhand) who sought exemption from attending LLB classes on the grounds that the petitioner was employed by the educational institution.
The division bench headed by Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran in the case observed and has deemed the representation as ‘misguided’ and stated that there was no public interest in the exemption sought or the prayers made under the Right to Information, RTI Act.
The court in the case observed and has held that this court can at best say that the representation is misguided and there can be no consideration of the same.
Therefore, the court stated that the further arguments are with respect to an R.T.I. application, which again cannot be sought to be agitated in a public interest litigation.
Adding to it, the court stated that this court also have to pertinently observe that there is no public interest either in the exemption sought for or the prayers made under the R.T.I. Act. Thus, the petitioner is purely raising a personal issue; which also by the way the request is couched, is misconceived.
The Public Interest Litigation, PIL is moved seeking the direction to the Chancellor of the University i.e., the Respondent No. 1 to consider one Manoj Kumar’s representation, requesting exemption from LLB course attendance. Thus, the representation sought a directive from the Chancellor to pass an order on the exemption request, following which the petitioner intended to seek admission to a college within the State of Bihar for the LLB course.
In the present case, Kumar, appearing in person, had also filed an RTI application on January 27, 2023 to the Public Information Officer of the Raj Bhawan, Patna, which was disposed of. The court in the case observed and has rejected the PIL, wherein the court restrained itself from imposing costs, citing the petitioner’s appearance in person.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has rejected the writ petition as misconceived and a clear abuse of the jurisdiction invoked under Article 226; as a public interest litigation.
The counsel, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar (In Person) appeared for the Petitioner. The counsel, Advocate Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Vipin Kumar represented the respondent.
