Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 4 Others vs C/M Pt. Janardan Mani Sri Krishnadeo ... on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 54 of 2020 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Respondent :- C/M Pt. Janardan Mani Sri Krishnadeo Mani Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Ray Counsel for Respondent :- Kushmondeya Shahi Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard on the application for condonation of delay so as the appeal.
We are first addressing the issue on merit and thereupon the application of condonation of delay.
It is a case where the petitioner/non-appellant applied for grant-in-aid. The application was received by the State Level Committee and matter was referred for verification of the educational institution, as to whether it is recognized or not etc. The Government issued orders on 07.02.2014 and 11.02.2014 for those institutions which are involved in teaching and were approved by their concerned Universities. On 24.03.2015, the State Level Committee, after getting the certificate of approval from the University, forwarded the list of such institutions which according to it were qualified for grant-in-aid. The list was published on 01.04.2015 but the name of the petitioner-institution was not shown. However, it was shown in the restricted recognition list. When the benefit of grant-in-aid was not extended to the petitioner, a writ petition was filed and allowed by the learned Single Judge finding that when institution was recognized and other formalities were completed like submission of endowment fund and consent of the Committee of Management then the State Authority could not have deprived the petitioner-institution from grant-in-aid. The rejection was made on the ground that the defects were not removed before the cut-off date of 31st January, 2015. The learned Single Judge found the defects to be of clerical nature thus could have been ignored and otherwise the information to remove the defects was received by the institutions subsequent to last date, as such, the petitioner-institution could not have removed the defect before the cut-off date of 31st January, 2015. The information was received by them on 12.05.2015. Taking aforesaid into consideration, the writ petition was allowed. A reference to the judgement of this Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi & another reported in 2014 (9) SCC 692 and in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi & others vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2015 (3) ADJ 567 (DB) was given.
Learned Chief Standing Counsel could not show the illegality in the order other than to urge that when the last date to remove the defect was fixed, any action of the institution subsequent to it to remove the defect, should not have been condoned.
We are unable to accept the argument aforesaid in the background that the last date to remove the defect was 31st January, 2021 whereas information about it was given on 12.05.2015, i.e., much subsequent to the last date. In the background aforesaid, if the defects were removed subsequently, it could not have been ignored by the State Authorities having send the information to remove the defects much subsequent to the last date. We do not find any ground to cause interference in the judgement of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The application for condontion of delay is however allowed looking to the justification and no serious objection to it by the non-appellant.
Order Date :- 4.8.2021 Shiraz (Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, A.C.J.)