Unauthorized Commercial Activities in Educational Institutions: Allahabad High Courts deprecate & ban such illegal activities

Introduction: Allahabad High Court Restrains Commercial Use of Educational Institutions

It is common knowledge that educational institutions often carry out commercial activities such as weddings, melas, and exhibitions to augment revenue. A question arises whether such activities are legally permissible.

The sanctity of educational institutions’ properties as reserved solely for academic and allied activities has been reaffirmed recently by the Allahabad High Court in the public interest litigation filed by Girja Shankar (PIL No. 542 of 2025). The Court’s intervention in restraining commercial exploitation of property belonging to Brahmanand Degree College at Rath, District Hamirpur, imparts significant guidance on ensuring compliance with statutory mandates and government regulations safeguarding public interest in educational domains.

Factual Background

The petitioner challenged the organization of a commercial mela on the playground and premises of Brahmanand Degree College, a government-aided college affiliated with Bundelkhand University. Despite explicit judicial and administrative orders prohibiting any commercial or private use of educational institutions’ lands, the mela was conducted from January 15, 2025, to March 10, 2025, with permission sanctioned by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Rath, who claimed unawareness of the prohibition.

The petitioner contended that the mela’s conduct contravened an interim order of the Allahabad High Court dated March 3, 2020, in Writ-C No. 7500 of 2020, which expressly restrained commercial, marriage, or coaching activities on government-aided educational properties. The petitioner sought an order to halt such unauthorized use and ensure adherence to the educational purpose of the premises.

Respondents, including the college administration and State officials, justified the mela citing administrative permissions under a 2011 Government Order regulating agitations and public functions and argued that the event caused no disruption to academic activities.

Legal Arguments

Petitioner’s Contentions

• Educational institutions’ premises, particularly playgrounds and fields, are inviolate as spaces for academic and recreational use.
• The interim order of March 2020, supported by government directives, legally prohibits any commercial or private use of such properties.
• The permission granted by the SDM was ultra vires and did not comply with directives applicable to government-aided institutions.
• Use of college land for commercial mela infringes statutory intent and the educational environment, affecting students’ rights and institutional integrity.

Respondents’ Contentions

• The mela was held with official permission, supported by “No Objection Certificates” from various departments including Fire and Electricity.
• The Government Order dated April 27, 2011, regulates processions, rallies, and agitations and does not explicitly forbid such activities.
• The event did not obstruct academic work or cause inconvenience.
• The interim order relied upon had merged with the final order upon dismissal of the original petition.

Court’s Findings and Reasoning

Rejecting the respondents’ contentions, the High Court underscored that the interim order dated March 3, 2020, remains binding, explicitly prohibiting commercial activities on educational institution lands, including fairs and exhibitions.

• The Government Order of 2011 cited by the respondents relates exclusively to maintaining law and order in public agitations and political activities, not to commercial use of educational property.
• Permission granted by the SDM under Form-B constituted an unlawful exercise of authority.
• College premises of government-aided institutions must be preserved exclusively for academic, sports, and allied educational purposes.
• Even unawareness of the prohibition by the authority did not justify granting such permission.
• Despite the mela being concluded, the issue warranted judicial scrutiny to prevent recurrence.
• The Court directed all district magistrates to ensure strict compliance with government orders and statutes.

Relevant Precedents

Excerpts from the Judgment

“…the mere fact that Mela in question was organised over the period of January to March 2025 does not render the petition infructuous given the significant public importance of the issue involved.”

“…permission granted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Form-B was apparently a farce, as the Government Order dated 27.04.2011 regulates political agitations and not commercial activities in educational institutions.”

“…land appurtenant to the school/college should not be permitted to be used for any activity other than activities of the educational institution…”

Takeaways

• Properties and playgrounds of government-aided educational institutions are protected reserves for academic and allied use.
• Administrative permissions granted in contravention of judicial and government orders nullify public interest.
• Authorities must exercise due diligence before permitting any non-educational use.
• Courts remain vigilant in safeguarding educational spaces against commercial exploitation.
• District magistrates have been directed to ensure compliance with this judicial mandate.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s decision in Girja Shankar v. State of U.P. meticulously delineates the boundaries between permissible educational activities and prohibited commercial exploitations of institution premises. It reiterates judicial insistence on protecting educational spaces from unauthorized use and compels government functionaries to align administrative decisions with statutory mandates. This case stands as a precedent for public authorities and educational institutions to uphold the sanctity of education by safeguarding their assets from commercial incursions, thereby protecting the rights of students and the public.

Author Details

Inder Chand Jain
M: 8279945021
Email: [email protected]