Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI NIWAS SHARMA & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. (EDUCATION) & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sri Niwas Sharma & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. (education) & Ors. - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. 40406 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1354 (18 May 2005)

 

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. 32

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40406 of 2005

Sri Niwas Sharma & another  V.   State of U.P. & Others

      ......

Hon'ble S.Rafat Alam J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners who claim to be residents of B.B. Nagar Bulandshahr have approached this Court for commanding the respondents to settle the agricultural rights of agricultural land belonging to Swatantra Bharat Inter College B.B. Nagar Bulandshahar measuring about 125 bighas through public auction and by inviting open offer from general public in the presence of respondents 1, 2 and 3 in order to fetch higher income to the institution.

We have heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhinav Upadhya learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, 2, 3 and 7. In view of the order, which is, being passed it is not necessary to issue notices to other respondents.

It is submitted that the petitioners are public spirited persons and have no personal interest in the matter and have approached this Court only in the interest of institution and they being resident of the locality are vitally interested in maintaining the academic standard and proper development of the institution which is dependant on its resources and therefore its property should not be settled through private negotiations. The institution is also on grant in aid list of the State Government and receives financial assistance from the State Government. The income received from the settlement of the agricultural land of the institution and donation given by general public are supposed to be utilized for betterment of the institution so that it can provide better education to the students of the locality. It is submitted that the aforesaid agricultural land are being settled in favour of the individuals only on the application made by them without wide publicity and inviting tender for holding public auction. It is further stated that the Committee of Management is superseded and the institution is being managed by the Authorized Controller who is also Assistant District Inspector of Schools, even then the Authorized Controller though being a public servant has settled the land for cultivation in an arbitrary manner with the individuals without following the provisions of the settlement of public property. It is therefore, submitted that necessary direction may be issued commanding the respondents to settle the land of the institution by auction after wide publicity.

On the other hand, Sri Abhinav Upadhya learned Standing Counsel relying on Section 4(3) of U.P. Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act 1974 submitted that since the institution in question is on the grant in aid list of the State Government, therefore, the petitioner has got an efficacious remedy to approach the Director of Education (Secondary).

It is further submitted that in the event the petitioner approaches the Director of Education (Secondary) with necessary details, the same would be  considered and the appropriate decision would be taken expeditiously.

From the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the statement of learned Standing Counsel and in view of the provisions contained in Section 4(3) of the Act, it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition at this stage without inviting counter affidavit and without adjudicating on the merit of the contention raised in the writ petition with the direction to the Director of Education (Secondary) that in the event the petitioner approaches the Director of Education (Secondary ) by filing a detailed representation the same may be considered and disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of two months by a reasoned order after affording opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties. It is made clear that we have not indicated any opinion on the merit and the Director of Education (Secondary) has to take decision keeping in view the interest of institution in accordance with law.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed off with the aforesaid directions.

Dt.18.5.2005

Hsc/


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.