Gujarat High Court
Shree Gayatri Education Trust vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 17 February, 2017
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/9746/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9746 of 2016
==========================================================
SHREE GAYATRI EDUCATION TRUST....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BIPIN I MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VICKY B MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. ROHAN YAGNIK, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
MR RR VAKIL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 17/02/2017
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. The petitioner Shree Gayatri Education Trust claiming to be represented by its authorised trustee, has filed the present petition. The challenge therein is addressed to order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the second respondent-the Director of Primary Education. By the said order, the Director of Primary Education ordered cancellation of recognisation of Sugnyan Vidhya Vihar Primary school, Viratnagar, Odhav, Ahmedabad run by the petitioner trust.
Page 1 of 5HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 08:10:58 IST 2017 C/SCA/9746/2016 ORDER
3. The grounds mentioned for ordering withdrawal/cancellation of the recognisation are firstly that the school building is situated on the plot which is owned by the Municipal Corporation of the Ahmedabad city and that it is not possible to regularise the building, as no such provisions in Gujarat Regularisation of Un-authorised Development Act, 2001, exists. The second reason mentioned is that in one building, two schools by the two different trustees are been run, which is in breach of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012. The third reason indicated is that the salary of the staff is not paid through bank, as required. The next ground is that the recruitment of the teachers is not in accordance with law, in particular as per the schedule-F, and further that except one, none of the teachers have been possessing the requisite qualifications. Last ground mentioned is that presently the strength of the students is not adequate.
3.1 While coming to the aforesaid conclusion and canceling/withdrawing the recognisition on that basis, it is recorded by the Director of Primary Education that trustee of the petitioner trust one Mr. Gaurangbhai Patel was called for hearing twice and was informed telephonically to attend the hearing. It was recorded that he did not remain present, but submitted written communications. Thus on the ground that though said trustee was called for Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 08:10:58 IST 2017 C/SCA/9746/2016 ORDER hearing, he did not remain present, the present order came to be passed.
3.2 While learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the case of the petitioner trust was duly considered before arriving at the impugned order, the following uncontroverted averments are made by the petitioner in the petition, "Hearing kept by the respondent no.3 on 24th June, 2015 but he was not informed the petitioner trust pursuant to the proposal received by him. There after hearing was kept on 27th July 2015 by letter dated 6th July of respondent no.3 On 27th July 2015 the petitioner remained present before the respondent no.3 and requested him to provide a necessary documents and it is categorically contended that no proposal dated 12th May, 2015 as alleged is submitted by the Shree Gayatri Education Trust if any proposal is there on record to provide such proposal along with documents if any attached to the said proposal. However the respondent no.3 has not supplied so called proposal or any documents to the petitioner."
3.3 Further averments made in para-29 are as under, "The petitioner submit that instead of providing the documents as demanded through letter dated 24th May 2016, documents are not provided.
Since no document is supplied to the petitioner as demanded vide letter dated 24th May 2016 is clearly indicate that the respondent no.2 has acted arbitrarily."
4. It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the documents were not supplied including copy of proposal dated 12.05.2015 by which the issue of cancellation was muted by the competent authority and other documents. It was, however, Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 08:10:58 IST 2017 C/SCA/9746/2016 ORDER stated that subsequently the petitioner could obtain the copy of the said proposal dated 12.05.2005 through the procedure of applying under the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, the fact remains that when the order was passed, the copy was not available and it became available subsequent to the passing of the order.
4.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader stated that the said proposal was muted by the trusts itself and therefore it was not necessary to supply a copy thereof. The same is not required to be going into in view of nature of the order being passed by this court.
4.2 The petition was contested by one Rakeshbhai Prahladbhai Patel, who happens to be the managing trustee. The respondent No.4 appears to be in favour of the closure of the school and he supported the impugned order. It was submitted on behalf of the fourth respondent by his learned advocate that the petition is guided by the ill-motive of the petitioner, who is not authorised representative of the trust, but who wants to capture the trusteeship of the trust. This aspect is not germane and the dispute about the trusteeship has to be agitated and resolved before the appropriate machinery as per law.
5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was not given hearing before passing the impugned order and that he had wanted certain documents to be Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 08:10:58 IST 2017 C/SCA/9746/2016 ORDER looked into for defending his case, the order could be said to be wanting in terms of compliance of principles of natural justice. It is only on the ground of not giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner that the same liable to be set aside. No other aspects of the matter is required to be gone into.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the the case is remanded to the Director of Primary Educationto decide the case of the petitioner afresh after hearing all the parties including the petitioner and in due compliance of principles of natural justice. This court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the either side.
7. The exercise of deciding afresh as above, shall be completed by the competent authority within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) cmjoshi Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 08:10:58 IST 2017