Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the appointment of Dr. S. Vidyashankar as Vice-Chancellor of Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU), which had been challenged in multiple proceedings, including W.P.No.16651/2025. The petitioners, Yogesh B. and Venugopal K.A., alleged that the appointment violated UGC Regulations, 2018 and Section 13 of the VTU Act, 1994, claiming that Dr. Vidyashankar lacked the requisite qualifications and that the Search-cum-Selection Committee was improperly constituted. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, noting that the petitioners had not amended their petition to challenge a subsequent extension of Dr. Vidyashankar's term. The petitioners appealed, arguing that the original appointment was void ab initio and that the extension could not cure the alleged illegality. The court analyzed the history of the litigation, noting that previous petitions had been dismissed on grounds of delay and lack of bona fides. The court emphasized that the repeated invocation of constitutional jurisdiction for the same issue constituted an abuse of process. Ultimately, the court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision, finding no merit in the appeal and reiterating that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court should not be used for personal grievances. The court concluded that the petitioners had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in challenging the appointment and that the repeated attempts to unsettle the appointment were not justified.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Quo Warranto - Grounds for Issuance - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court held that a writ of quo warranto is a public law remedy that requires the incumbent to demonstrate lawful authority for holding public office. The court emphasized that repeated attempts to invoke jurisdiction for the same cause, especially after prior dismissal, constitute an abuse of process and should not be entertained (Paras 39-40). B) Administrative Law - Delay and Laches - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court noted that the petitioners failed to explain the significant delay in questioning the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, which had already been subjected to constitutional challenge. The court ruled that such delay undermines the legitimacy of the petition and warrants dismissal (Paras 28-30). C) Public Interest Litigation - Abuse of Process - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court reiterated that PIL jurisdiction cannot be used to settle personal scores or grievances. The court found that the petitioners' repeated challenges to the same appointment were motivated by extraneous considerations rather than genuine public interest (Paras 31-34).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in treating the writ petition as infructuous without examining the effect of the subsequent extension order and the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the learned Single Judge's order that the writ petition had become infructuous due to the failure to challenge the subsequent extension of the Vice-Chancellor's term. The court found no merit in the appeal and emphasized that repeated attempts to invoke jurisdiction for the same cause constituted an abuse of process.
Law Points
- Writ of quo warranto
- Constitutional jurisdiction
- UGC Regulations
- VTU Act
- Delay and laches
- Abuse of process
- Public interest litigation
