Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 4 Others vs C/M Pt Janardan Mani Sri Krishnadeo Mani ... on 7 April, 2022
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 46 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 474 of 2021 Applicant :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Opposite Party :- C/M Pt Janardan Mani Sri Krishnadeo Mani Sri Durga Maa Adarsh Sanskrit Uchchattar Madhyamic Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Ray Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kushmondeya Shahi Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard Sri Anand Kumar Ray learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-review applicant and Sri Kushmondeya Shahi learned Advocate for the respondent.
The submissions of the learned counsel for the review applicant is that the findings returned by the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Special Appellate Court that the information of the communication sent by the Director of Education, for asking the petitioner-institution to remove the defects in the application for grant-in-aid was received by the petitioner on 12.5.2015, is without any evidence, inasmuch as, the Director of Education sent the communication for removal of defects through the District Inspector of Schools on 28.1.2015.
To the contrary, it is argued by Sri Kushmondeya Shahi learned counsel for the respondent that though the last date for removal of defect was 31st January, 2021 but the meeting of the State Level Committee, constituted for consideration of application seeking grant-in-aid, was held on 24.3.2015. By that time, the respondent-institution had already removed the defects and communication in that regard was forwarded by the District Inspector of Schools on 16.3.2015 to the office of the Director of Education, U.P., Lucknow.
The contention of the respondent, thus, is that the rejection of claim of the petitioner-institution by including it in the restricted recognition list is nothing but an illegal act. The Director of Education, U.P., Lucknow was answerable to the Court to intimate as to why the communication dated 16.3.2015 sent by the District Inspector of Schools was not placed before the State Level Committee.
All these submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent, surprisingly, do not find place either in the judgment of the learned Single Judge or the Special Appellate Court. Both the decisions only proceed on the premise that the respondent had received communication pointing out defects in the application for grant-in-aid on 12.2.2015 whereas the last date for the removal of defect was 31.1.2015 and as such there was no occasion for the petitioner-institution to remove the defects.
Learned Single Judge and the Special Appellate Court proceeded on the premise that there has been non-consideration by the State Level Committee as the respondent-institution did not get sufficient time to remove the defects. It seems that it was not placed before the Court that the meeting of the State Level Committee was held much after 12.2.2015; i.e. on 24.3.2015. There is no explanation in reply to the review application, by the counsel for the respondent-institution as to why the above noted facts were not placed before the learned Single Judge or the Special Appellate Court.
For the apparent error on the face of the record, found in the judgment and order dated 4.8.2021 passed by the Special Appellate Court, we find substance in the review application.
The review application is, accordingly, allowed.
The judgment and order dated 4.8.2021 is hereby recalled.
The Special Appeal Defective No. 54 of 2020 (State of U.P. and 4 others vs. C/M Pt Janardan Mani Sri Krishnadeo Mani) is restored to its original number.
Order sheet Let this appeal be listed before the appropriate Bench.
Order Date :- 7.4.2022 Brijesh