Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIDYA VIKAS PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN BEERBHANPUR versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vidya Vikas Prashikshan Sansthan Beerbhanpur v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 14822 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 5178 (22 March 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.1.2007 rejecting the representation dated 11.3.2006 filed by the petitioner against the order cancelling allotment of three Primary Schools to the petitioner.

The petitioner claims to be a Non-Governmental Organization registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration act. It was allotted three Schools by the District Magistrate,  Sonbhadra but by the order dated 7.3.2006 the said order was cancelled. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 16826 of 2006 which was disposed of with a direction that the order dated 7.3.2006 shall be treated as a show-cause notice and the representation dated 11.3.2006 shall be treated as a reply to the show-cause notice and the same was to be decided by a reasoned order. It is the decision taken on the representation filed by the petitioner that has been impugned in the present petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the materials available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order is liable to be quashed merely on the ground that personal hearing was not given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, submitted that it was not incumbent upon the respondents to provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed before us the judgment and order dated 1.11.2006 passed by this Court and submitted that in view of the directions issued by this Court, it was incumbent upon the respondents to provide personal hearing to the petitioner.

We express our inability to accept this contention as there is nothing in the order dated 1.11.2006 which may indicate that personal hearing was required to be given to the petitioner. A perusal of the order clearly shows that only the representation filed by the petitioner was to be treated as a reply to the show-cause notice and the same was required to be decided by a reasoned order.

The respondents have decided the representation by a reasoned order running into as many as 13 pages. We have examined the said order and find no infirmity in the same.

The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt/- 21.3.2007

Sharma/14822


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.