Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Saptarishi Education And Charitable ... vs Wonderful Education And Charitable ... on 9 April, 2014

Author: Abhilasha Kumari

Bench: Abhilasha Kumari

        C/SCA/5022/2014                              ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5022 of 2014
================================================================
 SAPTARISHI EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST & 1....Petitioner(s)
                           Versus
WONDERFUL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST & 5....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SUNIL S JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
MR DM DEVNANI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 4
================================================================
        CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
               KUMARI

                          Date : 09/04/2014
                           ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate for the petitioners has moved a  draft   amendment.   The   same   is   granted   and   may   be  carried out, within two days.

2. This petition under Articles­226 and 227 of the  Constitution of India has been preferred,  inter­alia,  with   prayers   to   issue   a   Writ   of   Mandamus   or   other  appropriate   writ   or   direction   quashing   and   setting  aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2013, passed by  respondent No.3­Director of Primary Education, whereby  the issue regarding cancellation of the recognition of  the   School   run   by   respondent   No.1­Trust   has   been  remanded to the lower authority and to direct the said  Page 1 of 12 C/SCA/5022/2014 ORDER respondent   to   cancel   the   recognition  of   the   said  School.

3. The brief factual background, as mentioned in the  petition,   is   that   the   petitioner­Trust   was   brought  into being in the  year 2003  and was registered as a  public trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public  Trust   Act,   1950.   The   main   objects   of   the   said   Trust  were to further charitable and educational activities  in the State of Gujarat. According to the petitioners,  at the time of registration of the Trust, respondent  No.5 was the elected President of the Trust. Somewhere  in the year 2005, the Trust started a School, namely,  Jivan   Pragna   Vidhyalay,   for   which   permission   was  sought   from   respondent   No.5   for   starting   Standard­I  (English Medium). Thereafter, higher classes were also  started   and   permission   therefor   was   also   granted   by  respondent   No.3.   In   the   year   2007,   petitioner   No.1  started   a   Gujarati   medium   School   after   taking  permission from the competent authority. As of today,  petitioner No.1 is running English and Gujarati medium  classes   from   Standards­I   to   VII,   as   stated   in   the  petition. The School of the petitioner No.1­Trust was  started in the premises belonging to respondent No.5,  Page 2 of 12 C/SCA/5022/2014 ORDER on rental basis. As per the case of the petitioners,  respondent No.5 recovered rent from the petitioners to  the tune of Rs.30,000/­. It is stated in the petition  that there was a dispute between the trustees and as  majority   of   the   trustees   were   not   with   respondent  No.5, he was not permitted to manage the affairs. He,  therefore, started a movement to take over the school  premises   in   a   clandestine   manner   and   to   get  recognition of another private primary school in the  very given premises in which the School of petitioner  No.1­Trust is being run. Such permission was granted  and respondent No.5 started a School in the name of  Jivan   Jyot   Vidhyalay.   According   to   the   petitioners,  the School was started with a sole aim and purpose to  take   over   the   School   of   petitioner   No.1­Trust.  Petitioner No.1­Trust made several representations to  the   respondent   authorities,   apart   from   lodging   a  criminal   complaint   against   respondent   No.1­Trust.  Reports were prepared by the concerned authority and  put   before   respondent   No.3­Director   of   Primary  Education.   After   scrutinizing   the   same,   respondent  No.3   passed   the   impugned   order   dated   30.12.2013,  wherein it is stated that the reasons for cancelling  Page 3 of 12 C/SCA/5022/2014 ORDER the recognition of the School run by respondent No.1­ Trust are not clear, therefore, the matter be remanded  and   clear   reasons   be   recorded   before   a   decision   is  taken. Being aggrieved by the above­stated order, the  petitioners have approached this Court by filing the  present petition.

4. Mr.Sunil   S.   Joshi,   learned   advocate   for   the  petitioners   has   submitted   that   the   Deputy   District  Development Officer has recorded clear­cut findings in  his report dated 10.10.2013, wherein it is stated that  before granting recognition to respondent No.1­Trust,  the   School   of   petitioner   No.1­Trust   was   already  running   in   the   same   premises.   In   spite   of   the  uncontroverted   report   of   the   Deputy   District  Development Officer, as also the report submitted by  the   District   Primary   Education   Officer   dated  21.10.2013,   the   impugned   order   has   been   passed  remanding the matter for recording clear reasons. 4.1 That Rules­106(9) of the Bombay Primary Education  Rules, 1949, states that no new school will ordinarily  be   allowed   to   be   opened   unless   the   authority,  recognizing   the   private   primary   school   shall   be  Page 4 of 12 C/SCA/5022/2014 ORDER satisfied   that   it   will   fulfill   a   felt   need  of   the  locality concerned. The managing body of the trust or  society   proposing   to   start   a   new   private   primary  school will have to give convincing proofs regarding  the   nature   of   the  need.  Rule­106(10)   states   that   no  new school will ordinarily be allowed to be opened in  a   locality   if   the   authority   recognizing   the   private  primary   school   is   convinced   that   it   is   likely   to  result   in   unhealthy   and   unfair   competition   with   an  existing   school   within   a   reasonable   distance   of   1.5  kilometers. If, as a consequence of starting of a new  private   primary   school,   any   school   already   in  existence in the same locality suffers a loss of more  than   20   percent   in   its   enrollments,   this   would   be  considered,   as   a   positive   proof   of   unhealthy  competition. It is submitted that in the present case  the   School   being   run  by  respondent   No.1­Trust   is   in  the premises where the School of petitioner No.1­Trust  is being run, therefore, respondent No.3 has not taken  into consideration the existing Rules and is running  away from his duties and buying time.

4.2 That,   in   the   impugned   order,   it   is   stated   that  specific   reasons   be   recorded   by   the   Deputy   District  Page 5 of 12 C/SCA/5022/2014 ORDER Development Officer and the District Primary Education  Officer, ignoring the fact that specific reasons have  already   been   given   in   the   reports.   That   respondent  No.3 ought to have taken a decision on the basis of  the   reports,   instead  of  remanding   the   matter  to  the  lower   authority,   therefore,   the   impugned   order  deserves to be quashed and set aside and recognition  of the School run by respondent No.1­Trust ought to be  cancelled.

5. The petition has been opposed by Mr.D.M.Devnani,  learned   Assistant   Government   Pleader   for   respondent  Nos.2, 3 and 4, appearing on an advance copy of the  petition. It is submitted that the very  locus standi  of   the   petitioners   in   approaching   this   Court   is  questionable, as no fundamental or legal right of the  petitioners have been violated. Petitioner No.1 is a  Trust and the matter appears to have arisen out of a  dispute   between   the   petitioner   No.1­Trust   and  respondent No.1­Trust. The dispute centers around the  property where the School run by the petitioner No.1­ Trust is situated, which is owned by respondent No.5,  who was the erstwhile trustee of the petitioner No.1­ Trust and has now formed a new School with respondent  Page 6 of 12 C/SCA/5022/2014 ORDER No.1­Trust.

5.1 It   is   further   submitted   that   the   petitioner   is  making   a   hue   and   cry   regarding   the   Rules   and   the  alleged illegality committed by respondent No.1­Trust,  whereas petitioner No.1­Trust has itself granted a 'No  Objection   Certificate'   to   respondent   No.1­Trust   to  open   a   School   in   the   same   premises.     As   such   the  petitioner   No.1­Trust   has   itself   committed   the  illegality, if any, as complained by it.  5.2 The order under challenge is an order of remand  where   no   findings   on   merit   have   been   recorded.  Respondent   No.3   has   merely   remanded   the   matter   for  recording   of   clear   and   specific   reasons,   as   per  the  Rules. As the future of the students, who are studying  in the School run by respondent No.1­Trust has already  been taken into consideration and as the decision to  cancel the recognition of School is to be taken after  considering all relevant factual and legal aspects, it  cannot   be   said   that   the   impugned   order   whereby  specific reasons have been directed to be recorded is  an illegal one.     

6. In rejoinder, Mr.Sunil S. Joshi, learned advocate  Page 7 of 12 C/SCA/5022/2014 ORDER for the petitioners has submitted that insofar as the  'No Objection Certificate' is concerned, it has been  given by the Principal of the School run by petitioner  No.1­Trust   and   not   by   the   management,   therefore,   it  cannot   be   said   to   be   a   valid   one.   Moreover,   the  Principal of the School run by petitioner No.1­Trust  has   joined   hands   with   respondent   No.1­Trust,  therefore, the said certificate cannot be taken into  consideration.

7. This   Court   has   heard   learned   counsel   for   the  respective   parties   at   length,   perused   the   averments  made in the petition, contents of the impugned order  and other documents on record.

8. The prayer of the petitioners is a mandatory one  to the effect that respondent No.3 may be directed to  cancel the recognition of the School run by respondent  No.1­Trust. It is clear from the averments made in the  petition   that   initially   the   petitioner   was   on   good  terms   with   respondent   No.5,   who   was   an   erstwhile  trustee   of   the   petitioner   No.1­Trust.   It   seems   that  the dispute started when respondent No.5 formed a new  Trust, that is the respondent No.1­Trust and started a  Page 8 of 12 C/SCA/5022/2014 ORDER new   School.   This   Court   cannot   comment  upon   the  validity,   or   otherwise,   of   the   'No   Objection  Certificate'   issued   by   the   Principal   of   petitioner  No.1­Trust   on   08.03.2013,   in   favour   of   respondent  No.1­Trust.   It   is   for   the   competent   authority   to  verify its efficacy. However, it does appear that at  some point of time, there was no objection on the part  of the petitioner for opening the School, which is now  denied by the learned advocate for the petitioners, by  saying that the Principal of petitioner No.1­Trust has  joined hands with respondent No.1­Trust. 

9. Coming   to   the   impugned   order   of   remand,   it   is  evident   that   the   said   order   does   not   contain   any  decision on merits. Whether to accept the reports of  the   subordinate   authorities,   or   not,   and   if   so,   to  what   extent,   is   dependent   upon   the   subjective  satisfaction of the authority which is vested with the  power to cancel the recognition of the School; in this  case   respondent   No.3.   In   the   impugned   order,  respondent No.3 has stated that after considering the  reports   of   the   authorities   below,   reasons   for  cancelling   the   recognition   of   the   School   run   by  respondent   No.1­Trust   are   not   clear,   therefore,   the  Page 9 of 12 C/SCA/5022/2014 ORDER matter   be   remanded,   in   order   to   enable   the   concerned  authorities   to   record   specific   reasons   whether   the  recognition of said School deserves to be cancelled, or  not.   It   has   been   strenuously   argued   by   the   learned  advocate   for   the   petitioners   that   the   reports   dated  10.10.2013   of   the   Deputy   District   Development   Officer  and   that   dated   21.10.2013   of   the   District   Primary  Education Officer are clear enough and respondent No.3  could easily have taken a decision on the basis of those  reports.   According   to  the   petitioners,   respondent   No.3  is running away from his duty by not taking a conscious  decision on the basis of such reports.

10. This   Court   is   unable   to   agree   with   the  submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the  petitioners,   for   the  reason   that  the   reports  of  the  authorities below are based upon the factual position,  as   observed   by   them.   The   full   report   of   the   Deputy  District Development Officer, including the annexures,  running into over a thousand pages, as stated by the  learned   advocate   for   the   petitioners,   has   not   been  placed   before   this   Court.   It   is   for   the   competent  authority, in this case respondent No.3, to arrive at  a   subjective   satisfaction   that   clear   and  specific  Page 10 of 12 C/SCA/5022/2014 ORDER reasons   exist   on   the   record   for   cancelling   the  registration of a School where students are studying.  As   recorded   in   the   impugned   order,   in   the   view   of  respondent   No.3,   no   clear   and   specific   reasons   have  been stated, therefore, the matter has been remanded to  the concerned authority for recording specific reasons.  In the view of this Court, it cannot be presumed that  by passing such an order, respondent No.3 is shirking  his   duties.   Neither   can   the   prayers   made   by   the  petitioners, which are mandatory in nature, be granted  by this Court, as it is not for this Court to decide,  or to direct respondent No.3, whether the recognition  of   the   School   run   by   respondent   No.1­Trust   should   be  cancelled,   or   not.   That   decision   is   to   be   taken   by  respondent No.3, after clear and specific reasons, as  demanded   by   him   are   received   from   the   concerned  authority.

11. The   impugned   order   is   not   an   order   on   merits.  Just because the petitioners are interested in having  the recognition of the School run by respondent No.1­ Trust, cancelled, does not mean that respondent No.3  may   be   pressurized   to   take   any   decision   in   hurry.  However, a certain time­frame would be necessary which  Page 11 of 12 C/SCA/5022/2014 ORDER the Court shall provide for.

12. Learned   advocate   for   the   petitioners   has   made  certain   submissions   on   the   merits   of   the   case,  including the stipulations in the Rules. As this Court  does not intend to enter into the merits of the case,  those   submissions   are   not   dealt   with.   It   does   not  appear from the averments made in the petition and the  submissions   advanced   at   the   Bar,   that   any   legal,  fundamental   or   indefeasible   right   of   the   petitioners  have   been   violated   by   the   passing   of   the   impugned  order,   so   as   to   warrant   the   exercise   of   jurisdiction  under   Article­226   of   the   Constitution   of   India,  especially as the impugned order, being one of remand,  has not been passed on the merits of the case.

13. The petition is, therefore, rejected.

14. However,   the   concerned   authorities   are   directed  to   complete   the   exercise,   as   required   by   respondent  No.3, in the impugned order dated 30.12.2013, within a  period of 12 weeks from today.   

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Gaurav+ Page 12 of 12