The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant judgment prohibiting the use of immovable properties of educational institutions, including their playgrounds, for any commercial purposes such as fairs, exhibitions, or trade shows. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra directed the Uttar Pradesh State Government to issue a clear circular to this effect within one month. The ruling came in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the organization of a commercial ‘Mela’ on the grounds of a government-aided degree college.
Background of the Case
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL No. 542 of 2025) was filed by petitioner Girja Shankar, seeking a direction to halt a commercial fair being organized within the premises of Brahmanand Degree College in Rath, District Hamirpur. The petitioner submitted that the institution is a Government-aided college affiliated with Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, and its premises are meant solely for educational purposes.
It was stated in the petition that since the previous year, a commercial fair had been organized on the college’s open ground at the instance of the Principal. The petition highlighted that a large-scale ‘Mela’ had commenced on January 17, 2025, featuring numerous commercial shops and stalls.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel, Azad Khan, argued that the organization of the Mela was in direct violation of a High Court order dated March 3, 2020 (in Writ-C No. 7500 of 2020). This earlier order had directed all District Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh to restrain educational institutions from using their properties for any private or commercial activities, including marriage functions. Following that order, the Director (Higher Education) had issued a communication on June 9, 2020, to all universities and colleges for strict compliance.
The respondents, including the Principal of the college (Respondent No. 4) and the State, initially contended that the petition had become infructuous as the Mela, which ran from January 15, 2025, to March 10, 2025, was already over. The Principal’s affidavit stated that permission for the fair was granted by the President of the Committee of Management and subsequently by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Rath. It was also submitted that the organizer had provided a notarized affidavit undertaking that the event would not disrupt academic activities.
The SDM, Rath, in a separate affidavit, explained that the permission was granted as he was purportedly unaware of the bar on using institutional grounds for non-educational activities, a plea the Court later rejected as “wholly spacious.” The SDM justified the action by citing a Government Order dated April 27, 2011, and pointed out that the ground had previously been used for official events, including visits by the Prime Minister and Deputy Chief Ministers. The respondents also argued that the interim order from the 2020 case had lost its efficacy as the writ petition itself was subsequently dismissed on March 5, 2025.
The Court’s Analysis
The High Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the petition was infructuous, observing that “the core issue involved in these proceedings which this Court finds of significant public importance.”
Addressing the respondents’ reliance on the Government Order of April 27, 2011, the Court found the argument to be “apparently a farce.” The judgment clarified that the said G.O. “has nothing to do with use of properties belonging to educational institutions for the purposes of agitations/protests/public activities and functions, rather the same is meant for maintaining law and order situation.” The Bench noted that the respondents had altered the official permission form (Form-B) attached to the G.O. by replacing terms like ‘political event’ with ‘exhibition’ to suit their purpose.
The Court observed from photographic evidence that the event, titled ‘Swami Brahmanand Mela Mahotsav’, involved large-scale commercial operations, including “huge swings, shops and stalls like that of Ice-Candies/Ice-Popsicles, garments sale… and many other identical commercial activities.”
Emphasizing the importance of institutional infrastructure, the Court stated that a playground is an “essential feature of affiliation/recognition granted to educational institutions.” The Bench laid down a clear principle, stating:
“Educational institutions are meant for imparting education only and the land and building belonging to such institutions which include their playgrounds also, cannot be permitted to be used for holding any commercial activity under any name, like exhibitions, trade fairs or other kinds of fairs, or sale of one or the other articles and goods etc. Infrastructure of educational institutions is meant to be utilised strictly for the purposes of educational activities and those associated and linked thereto like holding of sports events, cultural, inter-schools competitions, and such other identical curricular activities organised by the institution itself and for no other purpose.”
Final Decision and Directions
In its final verdict, the High Court held that the cause of action had not vanished merely because the fair had concluded. The Court issued a definitive ruling:
“…we hold that immovable properties belonging to educational institutions in the State of U.P., including their playgrounds, whether forming part of the same premises or situated elsewhere, cannot be allowed to be used for any commercial activities under any name, like exhibitions, trade fairs or other kinds of fairs, or sale of one or the other articles and goods etc.”
The Court disposed of the petition with the following directions:
- The State Government is directed to issue a “clear and unambiguous circular” to all District Administrations, Police Administrations, and Educational Institutions in line with the Court’s judgment within one month.
- The playground of Brahmanand Degree College at Rath, District Hamirpur, shall not be permitted to be used for any commercial activities in the future.
- The Registrar General of the High Court was directed to send a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary of the State Government for necessary compliance.
