Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Society Of Catholic Education vs State Of Raj And Ors on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13469/2016
Society of Catholic Education Institutions in Rajathan, Head
Office at Bishop's House, Kesarganj, Ajmer, 305001, Rajasthan
through its Vice President, Rev. Bishop Oswald Lewis son of Mr.
Xavier Lewis. (On behalf of its Members mentioned in Annexure-
1 to this writ petition).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary to the
Government, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary to the Government, Secondary Education
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Secretary, School Education (Group V), Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Bohra on behalf of Mr. Dinesh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General through VC assisted by Mr. Darsh Pareek Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/11/2022 The petitioner by means of this writ petition has made the following prayers:-
"a). Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Rajasthan School (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 unconstitutional and void under Articles 13(2) and 30(1) of the Constitution; and/or
b). Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016, as (Downloaded on 03/11/2022 at 09:02:50 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-13469/2016] unconstitutional for being directly in contravention of Article 13(2), law laid down by a larger Constitution Bench of 11 Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TMA Paid Foundation [2002(8)SCC481] in contravention of Article 30(1), law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC 1]; and for being violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1) (g) and 26, 29, 30 of the Constitution of India or,
c). Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the inclusion of minority educational institutions in the definition of Section 2(t) of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016, as unconstitutional for being directly in contravention of Articles 29 and 30, law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC 1]; and for being violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (g) and 26, 29, 30 of the Constitution of India or,
d). Any other appropriate order or directions which are deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner and in the interest of justice."
Learned Advocate General has pointed out that the controversy with regard to the validity of the Rajasthan School (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Indian School, Jodhpur and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 517 and the validity has been upheld. The Supreme Court in paragraph 66 of the aforesaid judgment concludes as under:-
"66. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we uphold the conclusion of the High Court in rejecting the challenge to the validity of the impugned 2016 Act and Rules framed thereunder. However, we do so by reading (Downloaded on 03/11/2022 at 09:02:50 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-13469/2016] down Sections 4, 7 and 10 of the Act in the manner indicated in paras 37, 47, 48 and 53 respectively of this judgment. These provisions as interpreted by given effect to, henceforth, in conformity with the law declared in this judgment. For the reasons mentioned hitherto, we hold that the High Court rightly concluded that the provisions of the 2016 Act as well as the 2017 Rules are intra vires the Constitution of India and not violative of Articles 13 (2) and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution."
In view of the above decision of the Apex Court, we are of the opinion that nothing survives to be adjudicated upon any further in this writ petition and that the controversy is squarely covered by the above decision.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to seek revival of the writ petition in case he is of the opinion that the matter still survives.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ RAJAT/AHSU/32 (Downloaded on 03/11/2022 at 09:02:50 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)