Vikram Singh v. Sahitya Akademi & Ors

MANMOHAN, J "vk"

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 8th July, 2010 % Judgment Pronounced on: 10th August, 2010 + LPA 289/2010 DR. VIKRAM SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Tanuj Khurana, Adv. versus SAHITYA AKADEMI & OTHERS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S. Nanda Kumar with Mr.Satish Kumar, Advs. for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sidhartha Das, Adv. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ In this appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the appellant has called in question the penetrability and sustainability of the order dated 18th March, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7073/2008. 2. The facts which have been undraped are that the Sahitya Akademi (National Academy of Letters), hereinafter referred to as the "Akademi", the 1st respondent herein, by letter dated 7th May, 2007, wrote to the Secretary of the Education Department of Uttar Pradesh asking for a panel of maximum three names to be recommended by the State Government in terms of Article 10(iv) of the Constitution of the Akademi for representing the State of Uttar Pradesh as a member of the General Council. As set forth in the writ petition, the Principal Secretary of the Language Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh responded by communication dated 25th July, 2007 nominating the petitioner and the said communication was followed by another letter dated 1st October, 2007 from the Principal Secretary of the Language Department, Government of the Uttar Pradesh wherein it was mentioned that the Hindi Sansthan of the Government of Uttar Pradesh was under the Language Department and working under the control of the Chief Minister and, hence, the letter written by the Akademi to the Education Department had been referred to the Language Department for necessary action. It was also stated in the letter that if the Department of Education had sent any nomination, the same be treated as cancelled. Despite the aforesaid communication, the Akademi took a decision not to nominate the petitioner as a member of the General Council and on the contrary, nominated the 4th respondent herein. 3. Before the learned Single Judge, it was the stand of the Akademi that the Education Department of the Government of the Uttar Pradesh had sent a panel of three names to the Akademi by letter dated 26th July, 2007 and the said authority was competent to send the names and on the basis of the said recommendation, the selection was made. The outgoing Council considered the recommendation sent by the Language as well as the Education Department and opined that when the Akademi had made a communication to the Education Department and it had sent three names of eminent writers, the same deserved to be considered and, accordingly, the 4th respondent was nominated as a member of the General Council. The allegations of mala fide and favoritism were disputed. It was the stand of the Akademi that as the institution was embodied by the Ministry of Education, the Akademi had sent a letter to the Education Department and a response was received and the said practice was followed in respect of other States. It was urged that the decision of the outgoing Council was fair and did not smack of any arbitrariness. It was further urged that the petitioner was making all sorts of endeavour and pressurising the Akademi to nominate him as a member which was not behovely on his part. 4. A rejoinder affidavit was filed contending, inter-alia, that it was obligatory on the part of the Akademi to accept the clarificatory letter issued by the Language Department and further the allegation made that the petitioner was putting pressure was sans substance. 5. The learned Single Judge took note of the reply given by the Akademi