Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satnam Ayurved Yoga Naturopathy ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 November, 2016
W.P. Nos.14231/14, 14778/14, 3658/16,
3662/16, 3667/16, 3668/16, 3671/16,
3676/16, 3682/16, 3683/16,3684/16,
3685/16, 3687/16, 3690/16, 3693/16,
3698/16, 3703/16, 3706/16, 3709/16,
3711/16, 3713/16, 3716/16, 3718/16,
4679/16, 4681/16
21.11.2016
Mr. J.K. Pillai, Mr. Paritosh Gupta, Mr. Siddharth
Gupta with Mr. Amit Garg; Mr. Abhishek Arjaria, Mr.
Manoj Rajak, Mr. Abhishek Gulati, Mr. Rajesh Chand,
Mr. Parag Tiwari, Mr. Himanshu Mishra, Mr. Veer
Kumar Jain and Mr. Vivek Maurya, learned counsel for
the petitioners.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondents/State.
Mr. Tabrej Sheikh, learned counsel for the M.P. Paramedical Council, Bhopal.
Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the issue involved in the present bunch of petitions is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in W.P. No.10779/2014 [Meenakshi Academy of Paramedical Studies vs. State of M.P. & Ors.] along with which all these petitions were heard and reserved for orders, however, a perusal of the order- sheet indicates that it was observed by the Division Bench on 19-8-16 that as the facts in the said case were different, therefore, these cases were directed to be released.
Apparently, the issue involved in the present petitions relates to recovery on account of illegal and fraudulent reimbursement of scholarship admissible to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes students by the institution.
On a perusal of W.P. No.14231/14 and W.P. No.14778/14 it is apparent that there is no impugned order on record against the petitioners' - institutions. On the contrary, the impugned order is said to be Annexure-P/7 appended to the W.P. No.14231/14 which, in fact, is an inspection/enquiry report giving details of the reserved category students scholarship, receipts and instances of illegal reimbursement of scholarship. It is stated that though there is no order of recovery on record, however the respondents have initiated recovery proceedings.
Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners may be granted liberty to file an objection/representation before the competent authority of the respondents against the findings recorded in the inspection/enquiry report in respect of the petitioners'-institutions which may thereafter be directed to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.
Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that in case such representations are filed by the petitioners, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.
In W.P. No.3658/16 and other matters the respondents have filed a return in which in para 11 they have stated that on receipt of the inspection/enquiry report, the Collector has forwarded the matter to the concerned authority for taking up recovery proceedings. Apparently, in view of the aforesaid statement made in the return, it is clear that the competent authority has proceeded with the same without taking any formal decision on the inspection/equiry report after giving an opportunity to the petitioners.
It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the inspection/enquiry report submitted by the authority concerned, has now been supplied to all the petitioners either along with the return filed in the writ petitions or the same has already been received by the petitioners who have appended it as an Annexure filed along with their respective petitions.
Under the circumstances and in view of the aforesaid admitted facts, there is no requirement for issuance of any further directions to respondents to supply a copy of the inspection/enquiry report to the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petitions are disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned authority of the respondents by filing objections/representations against the inspection/enquiry report, if so advised, along with a certified copy of the order passed today, within a period of three weeks. On doing so, the concerned authority shall consider and proceed to decide the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months thereafter, in accordance with law, if not already decided.
It is further observed that if representations/objections are not filed by the petitioners against the inspection/enquiry report
before the competent authority within a period of three weeks from today, the concerned authority would be at liberty to proceed towards making recovery as well as taking criminal/penal action against the petitioners and all concerned.
It is made clear that in case such representations/objections are filed before the competent authority within the stipulated time
prescribed by this Court, the authority concerned shall keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance, till final decision in the matter by the competent authority, if so required, and may proceed with the same as and when required, only in accordance with the decision taken by the authority.
However, it is made clear that while considering the matter if the competent authority is of the view that apart from the recovery proceedings, other criminal proceedings are required to be initiated against the petitioners, the competent authority would be at liberty to do so.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.
(R.S. Jha) (V.K. Shukla)
Judge Judge
ac.