National Union Of Backward Classes, Scs, Sts & Minorities v. Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare

$~A-51 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3682/2020 NATIONAL UNION OF BACKWARD CLASSES, SCS, STS & MINORITIES ..... Petitioner Through Mr.A.Rajarajan, Adv.

versus MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE..... Respondent Through Mr.Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.Syed Husain Adil Taqvi, GP for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 31.07.2020 This hearing is conducted through Video-Conferencing. 1.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.05.2020 pending before the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as a matter of grave urgency and dispose it off at the earliest. 2.

Essentially the grievance of the petitioner pertains to the seats of medical colleges of state government to be given to Union of India under the All India Quota. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent are not giving reservations in its All India Quota for students of other backward classes.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed out that in para 4 of the writ petition, it has clearly been stated that the petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation and that there is no other motive in filing

this petition other than public interest.

4.

It is clear that that the petitioner is personally not aggrieved by any of the issues raised in this petition. It is settled law that a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests having been violated ignoring the applicable principles. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exceptions to the general rule do not apply in this case. (In Re: Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 734) 5.

It would be for the petitioner to file an appropriate petition as per law.

6.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANT NATH, J JULY 31, 2020 rb