Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M SILAI KARHAI TATHA BUNAI PRASHIKSHAN THRU' MANAGER versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' PRINCIPAL SECY. & ANR.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M Silai Karhai Tatha Bunai Prashikshan Thru' Manager v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. & Anr. - WRIT - C No. 39790 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 8684 (1 May 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

Court No.7

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39790 of 2005

Committee of Management of Silai Karhai Tatha Bunai Prashikshan Evam Utpadan Kendra, A/8 Patrakar Colony Ashok Nagar, Allahabad through its Manager Keshav Dutta Mishra.                 ...Petitioner

                                                 versus

State of U.P. and others.                                               ...Respondents

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

          Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner is a technical institution known as Silai Karhai Tatha Bunai Prashikshan Evam Utpadan Kendra. The aforesaid institution is recognized by the Social Welfare Directorate of U.P. Lucknow for imparting training in Tailoring and Allied Crafts Courses and is run by a registered society namely, Nehru Bal Mandal,  registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

It is alleged that the petitioner's institution continued to receive recurring grant from 1976 to 1985 but the same was discontinued following black-listing to Nehru Bal Mandal by the Director Social Welfare vide order dated 17.1.1992.

Aggrieved the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30744 OF 2000, Silai Karhai Bunai Prashikshan Evam Utpadan Kendra Vs. State of U.P. and others. The aforesaid writ petition was decided vide judgment-dated 28.2.2005 directing the respondents to take the petitioner institution in the grant-in-aid list forthwith within a month from the date of the submission of a certified copy of the order or pass a reasoned order why the petitioner can not be extended the aforesaid benefits within the aforesaid period.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's institution continued to receive recurring grant from 1976 to 1985 but it has been discontinued following black listing to Nehru Bal Mandal by the Director Social Welfare in the year 1985-86. It is stated that 51 institutions were taken in grant-in-aid list by the State Government by Government Order dated 29.12.1988 taking the liability of the payment of salary to the employees w.e.f. 1.4.1988, as such in pursuance of the judgment dated 28.2.2005 passed by this Court the petitioner's institution was liable to be taken in grant-in-aid list forthwith within a month from the date of submission of a certified copy of the order. He has also relied upon paragraph 23 of the writ petition in which it has been mentioned that out of 51 institutions shown in the grant-in-aid list serial nos. 3,12,29,32,33,34,43 and 48 are the institutions which have received recurring grant after the petitioner's institution and no reason was assigned as to why the petitioner's institution was not taken in grant-in-aid list in pursuance of the judgment of this Court dated 28.2.2006.

The Director by the impugned order dated 15.4.2005 held that the examination of the recognized institution is held by the Social Welfare Department and successful candidates are issued certificate of training by it. He has further held that petitioner had been granted recognition for two years training and allied courses vide letter dated 14.3.1974 with the condition that all the expenses for conducting the examination as well as other expenses for running the Institution shall be borne by it and as such the State Government is not liable to bear any expenses of teachers and staffs by recurring grant. The relevant extract of the order in this regard is as under:-        

^^ek=k izf'k{k.k gsrq fdlh O;olk; esa ekU;rk izkIr djus ds vk/kkj ij gh dksbZ laLFkk 'kkldh; vuqnku izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh ugha gks tkrh D;ksafd bl izdkj LoSfPNd laxBuksa ds lapkyu dk nkf;Ro jkT; ljdkj dk ugha gSA LoSfPNd laxBu gksus ds dkj.k laLFkk ds lapkyu dh ftEesnkjh laLFkk ds izca/kra=k dh gS tks 'kqYd vkfn ds :i esa izkIr gksus okyh /kujkf'k ,oa vU; Jksrksa ls izkIr gksus okyh /kujkf'k ls laLFkk ds slapkyu dh O;oLFkk djrs gSA ;kph 14 ekpZ 1974 }kjk ek=k izkfof/kd izf'k{k.k ls lacaf/kr nks o"khZ; Vsyfjx ,.M ,ykbM dzkQ~V dkslZ dh ijh{kk esa lfEefyr djkus gsrq bl 'krZ ds lkFk ekU;rk nh x;h Fkh fd ijh{kk ds ikfjJfed O;; ,oa lacaf/kr vU; O;; Lo;a laLFkk dks ogus djuk gksxkA bl izdkj jkT; ljdkj] mDr laLFkk ds lapkyu ds fy;s fdlh izdkj dk vkorhZ vuqnku fn;s tkus gsrq ck/; ugha gSA**

          The Director in the impugned order dated 15.4.2005 has dealt the question of recurring grant to 51 institutions and the reason for not granting the same to the petitioner in pursuance of order and judgment dated 28.2.2005 in writ petition no. 30744 of 2004 is thus:-

                  ^^ 'kklukns'k la0 4621 @ 262-88 @ 41 ,0D;w0 @ 83 fnukad 29 fnlEcj 88 rFkk 'kklukns'k la0 1209 @ 262-89 @ 41 ,0D;w0@ 83 fnukad 30 ekpZ 89 }kjk izns'k dh 51 laLFkkvksa ds fdz;k'khy ?kksf"kr inksa ds osru ds 'kr&izfr'kr Hkqxrku gsrq vuqnku fn;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k FkkA 'kklu us mDr fu.kZ; lalk/ku dh miyC/krk ,oa laLFkkvksa ds ik=krk dh fLFkfr dks /;ku esa j[kdj fy;k FkkA

;kph dh laLFkk dks vuqnku fn;s tkus dh laLrqfr ftyk lekt dY;k.k vf/kdkjh bykgkckn }kjk e.Myh; mifuns'kd lekt dY;k.k bykgkckn dks vius i=k fnukad 7110 &11 fnukad 5-3-97 }kjk ?kksf"kr dh x;h Fkh ftlds vk/kkj ij mifuns'kd lekt dY;k.k bykgkckn us vius i=k la0 3525@ 96 & 97 fnukad 13-3-97 }kjk funs'kky; lekt dY;k.k dks miyC/k djk;k Fkk ijUrq lalk/ku dh deh ds dkj.k o"kZ 95&96 ds ckn ls 'kklu }kjk fdlh Hkh izkfof/kd izf'k{k.kjr LoSfPNd laLFkk dks lekt dY;k.k ds vkorhZ vuqnku lwph ij ugha fy;k x;k gSA orZeku esa tks laLFkk;sa igys ls lket dY;k.k foHkkx dh vuqnku lwph ij gSa muds deZpkfj;ksa ds osru dh yxHkx :0 2-23 djksM+ dh /kujkf'k ] lalk/ku dh deh ds dkj.k Hkqxrku u gks ikus ls] cdk;k gSA

vr% LoSfPNd laxBuksa ds lapkyu dh ftEesnkjh jkT; ljdkj dh u gksus ds dkj.k] ;kph laLFkk dks lekt dY;k.k foHkkx }kjk ek=k izf'k{k.k fn;s tkus ls vuqnku fn;s tkus dh ck/;;rk u gksus ds dkj.k] ljdkj ds ikl lalk/ku dh deh gksus ds dkj.k orZeku esa bl izdkj dh laLFkk dks vuqnku ij fy;k tkuk lEHko u gksus ds dkj.k ;kph laLFkk dks vuqnku ij fy;k tkuk lEhko ugha gSA

;kph dk izR;kosnu rn~uqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

                              g0 vLi"V

                            ¼j.kthr iadt½

                                                          funs'kd**

From the impugned order it appears that the petitioner institution is an independent society, which imparts training in Tailoring and Allied Crafts course and that the expenses incurred in running the institution were to be borne by the institution itself. It also appears from the order that there is acute shortage of finance faced by the State Government, hence after 1995-96 no institutions such as that of the petitioner have been given recurring grant and that a sum of Rs.2.23 crores are already due to be paid to the institutions which have already been provided the grant. Since the petitioner institution is an independent society and have its own financial resources to bear the expenses in regard to payment of teachers and employees of the institution, hence grant-in-aid is not required to be given to the petitioner's institution.

It is apparent from the order-dated 28.2.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 30744 of 2000 that the State Government was directed to take petitioner's institution in the grant-in-aid list forthwith within one month from the date of submission of a certified copy of the order or pass a reasoned order why the petitioner can not be extended the aforesaid benefits within the aforesaid benefits within the aforesaid period.

It is not denied that the petitioner institution was in the grant-in-aid list. The Court directed the State Government to take the petitioner institution in grant-in-aid list or pass a reasoned order within the time allowed. In my opinion, the petitioner institution is not entitled for grant-in-aid from the state government. The petitioner institution is a private institution and has own its employees, hence is liable to pay salary of teachers and staffs including the expenses incurred in conducting the examination. The petitioner is liable to take fee from the students for running the institution. The State Government cannot be compelled to pay any grant to any private institution.

              I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

   For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.

Dated 1.5.2006

CPP/-


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.