Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M UNIQUE MODEL HIGH SCHOOL AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M Unique Model High School And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. - 10872 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15603 (17 September 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

Court No.33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10872 of 2007

Committee of Management,

Unique Model High School,

Fatehganj (West), Bareilly and another

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V. K. Shukla, J.

Petitioners' institution applied for grant of recognition for running class 12 with Science subjects. Said recognition was granted 16.05.2006. Thereafter, consequential order of recognition was issued. Petitioners have contended that thereafter all requisite formalities were fulfilled by completing admission etc. Thereafter, order was passed on 13.11.2006 for withholding recognition. Petitioners were also directed to refund the registration forms of the students. Petitioners filed writ petition No.4090 of 2007 and an interim order was passed. Thereafter, order has been passed cancelling recognition which had been accorded on the ground that fraud had been practiced.

This is undisputed position that recognition was accorded to the institution in question for running Intermediate Science classes after orders were passed under Section 9 (4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Said order which was passed by State Government in exercise of its authority under Section 9 (4) of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921 was based on recommendation which was sent on 17.03.2006. Subsequent to the same, it has been found that no such recommendation had been made on 17.03.2006. The fact that fraud had been practiced, came to the notice and knowledge of the State Government, when Regional Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly, informed the State Government that no such recommendation, whatsoever, had been made and in spite of the same papers of recommendation had received. On 05.12.2006 meeting was convened by State Government wherein Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly was asked to appear with entire records, then facts were revealed that requisite terms and conditions for recognition were not fulfilled and further at no point of time any favorable recommendation had been made and the document on the basis of which order had been passed under Section 9 (4) of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921 was the report dated 17.03.2006 sent by Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Bareilly, which was found to be fake and fictitious, and in this background said recognition has been cancelled by the State Government and further directives have been issued for lodging F.I.R. Once this is the factual position that entire claim was based on fraud and manipulation, then no recognition can be accorded to petitioner institution. Petitioners have contended that they have no role to play in the same and they have not played any fraud. This is admitted position that recognition had been accorded on the basis of recommendation sent by Regional Secretary, and once said recommendation has been found to be forged, then State Government has rightly proceeded to cancel the same, as fraud vitiates every thing. In the present case opportunity of hearing is of no consequence as the document dated 17.03.2006, which had been made foundation and basis for passing order in favour of petitioners, has been found to be forged and qua the same even before this Court, except for contending that petitioners have no role in preparation of the said document, nothing fruitful has been substantiated.

Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.

17.09.2007

SRY.


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.