Himachal Pradesh High Court
Praveen Rajput & Anr vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 13 July, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
CWP No. 1601 of 2019
Decided on: 13.07.2023
Praveen Rajput & Anr. .....Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioners : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Abhinav Thakur,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
General with Mr. Ramakant
Sharma, Additional Advocate
General and Mr. J.S. Guleria,
Deputy Advocate General, for
respondents No. 1, 2 and 4.
Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal,
Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following reliefs:-
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 2
"(i) To set aside and quash the notice/letter dated 3.7.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2 .
i.e. Annexure P-8 supra;
(ii) To direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to allow the petitioners to submit complete recognition file with all the required documents/prescribed fee in accordance with law.
(iii) To direct the respondent No. 2 to grant recognition to the school of the petitioners namely Delhi Convent School, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, HP which school is being run by the petitioners;
(iv) To direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to run the school at Surani and consider the case of the petitioners for grant of recognition in accordance with law on the submission of the recognition file by the petitioners."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that as regards relief Nos. 3 and 4, the same have been rendered infructuous with efflux of time inasmuch as the respondents themselves have accorded recognition to the schools both at Jawalamukhi and Surani.
3. Now, the only issue that remains for adjudication is the validity of the consideration order dated 3.7.2019, which was passed in compliance to the earlier judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 521 of 2018, titled as ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 3 Praveen Rajput versus State of H.P. & others, decided on 17.3.2018, whereby the respondents were directed to consider .
the reply filed by the petitioner dated 14.3.2018, that was annexed as Annexure P-5 with the said petition.
4. Having perused the consideration order, we are of the considered view that the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Firstly, respondent No. 2 has not at all taken into consideration the contents of the reply dated 14.3.2018 as was directed by this Court. Even otherwise some of the contents of the consideration order are absolutely vague, more particularly, one relating to the imposition of fine, if any, for the last two years, as would be evident from the clause-4 of the consideration order, which reads as under:-
"4. If you want to run these schools then you are directed to submit the complete recognition file with all documents alongwith fine for last two years as per RTE Act 2009 within 10 days. Failing which the matter will be registered with the police for criminal case."
5. In the given facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration the subsequent developments, we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be examined afresh by the second respondent. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the impugned order dated ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 4 3.7.2019 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and set aside. Let the consideration order be passed within a period of four weeks.
.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan )
Judge
( Satyen Vaidya )
r Judge
July 13, 2023
(vs)
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS