Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M JANTA UCHCHATTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA 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 Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 19622 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7357 (23 April 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'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 and have perused the record. With consent of the learned counsel for then parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

Brief facts of this case are that the respondent no. 3 is the Principal of Janta Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Vijaypur, Kushi Nagar.  By an order dated 8.12.2006 passed by the petitioner-Committee of Management, the respondent no. 3 was placed under suspension. The papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval under Section 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The District Inspector of Schools had initially fixed 5.3.2007 for hearing, for which notice was given to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 3. On the said date, the matter could not be taken up and the hearing was adjourned for 20.3.2007. On 20.3.2007 again the District Inspector of Schools adjourned the hearing to 24.3.2007. On both these dates the petitioner was present for hearing. On 24.3.2007 the Manager sent an application for adjournment on the ground of his illness. However, the District Inspector of Schools proceeded to hear the matter and decided the same on the said date itself i.e. 24.3.2007.

The brief submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said order is an exparte order, which has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and is thus liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

In the impugned order, an observation has been made by the District Inspector of Schools that the matter has been pending since long and more than 60 days have passed and hence it is important to decide the matter urgently.

It is not understood that when the District Inspector of Schools himself had been adjourning the hearing on the past few dates when the petitioner as well as respondent no. 3 were both present, then why such urgency had been there to decide the matter on such particular date when the petitioner could not appear because of illness. The very fact that the notice had been given to the petitioner on each date would go to show that the opportunity of hearing was necessarily to be given to the parties. The proceedings do not show that the petitioner was in any way responsible for delaying the decision in the matter as, except for one adjournment, he had not sought adjournment on any earlier dates. It is well established principle of law that an order affecting a party has to be passed after following the principles of natural justice. In the present case, such opportunity of hearing has been denied to the petitioner. As such, without going into the merits of the case, on this ground alone, the impugned order dated 24.3.2007 passed by the District Inspector of Schools deserves to be set aside.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 24.3.2007 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar, respondent no. 2 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the District Inspector of Schools to take fresh decisions, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent no. 3 have both agreed that the parties would appear before the District Inspector of Schools on 1st May, 2007 at 10:00 A.M. for hearing of the case. The District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar, respondent no. 2 shall either hear the matter on that date itself or any other date which may be fixed within the next few days and decide the matter after hearing the parties, in accordance with law, within ten days.

No costs.

Dt/-23.4.2007

p.s.

w.p.19622.07

Let a copy of this order be issued, within two days, to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges.

Dt/-23.4.2007

p.s.

w.p.19622.07


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.