Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M. BABA RAM DASS JUNIR HIGH SCHOOL SAHAJAHANPUR versus STATE OF U.P.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M. Baba Ram Dass Junir High School Sahajahanpur v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - C No. 20011 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 2229 (30 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by the State Government dated 19.12.1998, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner submits that the institution in question was granted temporary recognition as Junior High School in the year 1972 and the same was renewed from time to time. From time to time the State Government invites application from the institutions desirous of consideration for being brought on the list of institution receiving grand-in-aid. Similarly the State Government called for an application for consideration in the year 1990. The petitioner has also submitted an application for requisite consideration. The Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) made recommendation for including the institution in the list of grand-in- aid. A decision was taken but the name of the petitioner's institution was excluded. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed Writ petition before this Court, which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 18041 of 1991. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 1.2.1996 with a direction to respondent no.1 the reason of refusing grant-in-aid to the petitioners in the list on 27.3.1991. The said order was quashed and the respondent no.1 was directed to decide the question allowing grant-in-aid to the petitioner as a fresh after affording opportunity to the petitoner. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and has rejected the claim, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

The petitioner submits that the other similarly situated institutions have been given grant-in-aid from the prior date and the petitioner has been brought on the list of the grant-in-aid from 1.4.96 though they were entitled to get the same from 1991. It has further been submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has also been discriminated as one Janta Jagriti Junior High School, Bela, Shahjahanpur has also approached this Court and in view  of the order dated 9.4.96, the said institution has been given grant-in-aid from 1.4.1991 but the petitioner has been discriminated.

Further submission is that the complete documents relating to the decision regarding grant-in-aid was submitted by the petitioner a copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition annexing the various documents and the report submitted by the District Inspector of Schools. But the authority concerned inspite of the aforesaid fact has not recorded a finding that how the petitioner is not entitled for the grant-in-aid from 1991. It has also been submitted that the finding to this effect that there was no building in the institution is a finding, which is based on no evidence. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the judgment passed in the writ petition, which was filed by the petitioner, the order was quashed and a finding to this effect has been recorded by the Hon'ble Single Judge that no cogent reason has been recorded that there is no building in existence for the purpose of running the school. As this was the main ground, therefore, only on the said ground, the case of the petitioner has been rejected. The finding to this effect that in the year 1991, there was no institution also is not based on any documentary evidence.

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the Standing Counsel inspite of the time granted by this Court, has not filed any counter affidavit, therefore, it will be presumed that the averments made in the writ petition is treated to be correct. From the record it is also clear that the authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has recorded the same finding which was recorded in the earlier order and that order has been set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No.18041 of 1991 decided on 1.2.1996. Therefore, in my opinion on the same ground the case of the petitioner cannot be rejected. The authority while deciding the case of the petitioner was obliged to consider the relevant document which has already been submitted by the petitioner annexing copy of the judgment of this Court as well as the various other documents but it appears that the same has not been considered.

In view of the aforesaid facts the order passed by respondent no.1 dated 19.12.1998, Annexure-2 to the writ petition cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to respondent no.1 to consider the case of the petitioner according to the representation and the documents which have been submitted by the petitioner. It is however, open to respondent no.1 to verify the fact regarding existing of the building on the date from when the petitioner seeks grant-in-aid. The specific and detailed order according to law be passed by respondent no.1 preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

30.1.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P. 20011 of 1999


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.