Delhi District Court
Nav Shakti Educational Society vs The Hon'Ble Lt. Governor Of Delhi on 10 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL: SCJ CUM RC (CENTRAL):
DELHI.
S.No: 633/06/02/86
In the matter of:
Nav Shakti Educational Society,
A registered society with its registered office at:
11, Rouse Avenue Lane,
New Delhi through its
Secretary, Sh. Prabhat Raman. .......Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1.The Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi.
L.G. Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
2.The Delhi Administration,
Delhi Secretariat, Delhi
Through the Administrator,
Or the Chief Secretary.
3.The Director of Education,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.
4.Central Board of Secondary Education,
Shiksha Kendra, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.
5.Laxman Public School Society,
15/1, Asaf Ali Road,
S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.1/30
New Delhi-110002 through its Chairman.
6.Smt. Shyama Aggarwal (Substituted on demise of
Defendant No. 6 Sh. L.S. Aggarwal)
(Wife & L.R.'s of Late Sh. L.S. Aggarwal)
30-B, Malcha Marg, Chankya Puri,
New Delhi-110021
Chairperson of Laxman Public School Society.
7.Sh. R.D. Goyal,
R-110, Greater Kailash, Part-I,
New Delhi-110048.
8.Mrs. Rajni Sareen,
6/10, Sarva Priya Vihar,
New Delhi-110016. ......Defendants.
Date of Institution: 05.08.1986
Date of assignment to this court: 14.01.2009
Date of arguments: 10.01.2012
Date of Decision: 10.01.2012
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff against defendants. It was stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is a society and has established and runs various educational institutions in Delhi. In the plaint, it was stated that plaintiff was allotted 7 acres of land by the DDA in Masjid Moth and Hauz Khas area at Sarai Sahji, Kalu Sarai and Shahpur Jat for establishing school and plaintiff society after taking possession of land in 1974 established Laxman Public School on the said land and was also S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.2/30 granted recognition for the said school by the defendant No. 3 on 21.3.1980 upto middle level and the school was further upgraded to the secondary level vide upgradation given by defendant No. 3 on 28.4.1981 and it was further stated that recognition so accorded by defendant No. 3 to the plaintiff society is still in force and has never been withdrawn or lapsed till date. As stated on application by plaintiff, the defendant No. 4 CBSE granted affiliation on 5.6.82 to the above school under the plaintiff based on above upgradation to secondary level dated 28.4.1981. It was stated that plaintiff framed a Scheme of Management and appointed a Managing Committee for its school in accordance with the law of which defendant No. 6 who was known to the plaintiff was appointed as Chairman, but with the passage of time intentions of defendant No. 6 turned dishonest and he eyed the land and school of plaintiff with extreme greed and wanted to grab it for himself through his society defendant No. 5 and with these dishonest intentions defendant No. 6 in connivance with officials of DDA, Directorate of Education, some employees of Laxman Public School and others tried to snatch away and grab for himself through his defendant No. 5 society, the land as well as the school from the plaintiff society. It was further stated that defendant No. 6 with intent to snatch and grab the school and its land from the plaintiff for his society defendant No. 5 attempted the same by suddenly proposing certain resolution in the meeting of the school's Managing Committee which were aimed at transferring the S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.3/30 school and its land from plaintiff society to defendant No. 5 society and as stated since the school and its land belonged only and exclusively to the plaintiff and it had appointed the Managing Committee for its Laxman Public School, it dissolved this Managing Committee, against which defendant No. 6 filed a false and frivolous suit in the Delhi High Court and obtained an ex-parte order of status quo dated 05.2.81 and on date of status quo the earlier Managing Committee appointed by the plaintiff existed, as the plaintiff was still in the process of constituting a new Managing Committee and therefore it continued due to the above status quo order. As stated towards this illegal and malicious objective the defendant No. 6 with active collusion of the above said officials made various blatantly false statements and concealed facts and by such fraudulent actions on one hand maneuvered to get the lease of land of the plaintiff illegally canceled from the office of DDA and got the same land allotted to his Laxman Public School Society and on the other hand made application to defendant No. 3 for grant of "essentiality" certificate U/s 44 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. It was stated that for obtaining the said 'essentiality', defendant No. 6 through his Society defendant No. 5 blatantly lied and falsely stated that 'essentiality' is being applied for establishing new school wherein in fact this 'essentially' was actually being illegally sought by defendant No. 6 through his society defendant No. 5 for the Laxman Public School. It was stated that this fact was deliberately S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.4/30 concealed and lied against even when pointedly inquired to by defendant No. 3 since it was very well known to Defendant No. 6, 5 and 3 that essentiality U/s 44 of the Education Act could only be granted for new school and not for any already existing recognised school as was being illegally attempted herein. It was stated that officials of defendant No. 3 though knew fully well that essentiality was being applied for same recognised Laxman Public School which was established and run by the plaintiff, defendant No. 3 enacted a drama of raising some queries with respect to grant of essentiality to defendant No. 5, in reply to which the defendant No. 5 blatantly lied and denied that essentially was in fact being sought and applied for the existing Laxman Public School, which was otherwise very well known to the defendant No. 3 as is clear from the records, but despite that knowledge it illegally granted essentiality certificate to defendant No. 5. It was further stated that all actions taken by defendant No. 3 to the detriment of, adversely effecting and against the rights and interest of the plaintiff were taken without taking any explanation from, or reference to the plaintiff and completely behind the back of plaintiff thereby deliberately concealing the whole matter from the plaintiff either before granting essentiality to Laxman Public School Society or before sending recommendation to DDA for allotment of land to defendant No. 5 or before granting impugned recognition dated 19.7.83 to the defendant No. 5, when defendant No. 3 was well aware that all these related to the school S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.5/30 established and run by the plaintiff. It was stated that plaintiff society never transferred school by any body or any third party whatsoever including to Laxman Public School Society and has no intention to transfer the Laxman Public School or the land on which it is established to anybody or any third party. It was averred that both DDA and Directorate of Education were well aware of the fact that plaintiff society is in actual occupation and possession of the land on which it had established and was running its duly recognised and upgraded Laxman Public School and number of representations, letters alongwith all the documents in order to support occupation and possession of plaintiff society viz-a-viz land and proving establishment and running of Laxman Public School only and exclusively by the plaintiff were repeatedly filed with DDA and Directorate of Education. It was further stated that plaintiff society was never informed of the allotment of the land to defendant No. 5 society by DDA and the said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff society only when the plaintiff society filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against DDA and others which is now pending in the court of Ms. Chhavi Kapoor, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi wherein DDA in the WS disclosed the fact of allotment of land to defendant No. 5 and of resumption of land from plaintiff and simultaneous handing over of symbolic possession of school to Laxman Public School Society, without following due process of law on 18.3.1983 which was only a drama, make believe, sham, paper S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.6/30 transaction and totally illegal as admittedly no prescribed procedure and due process of law was followed but it was done only to enact a fraud and drama to some how and even illegally aid and abet, the illegal designs of defendant No. 6 and defendant No. 5 society, to grab the land and school of the plaintiff. It was submitted that no show cause notice before canceling the lease was ever served on the plaintiff society neither plaintiff society was ever informed of resumption of land by DDA on 18.3.1983. It was further submitted that recognition dated 21.3.1980 and upgradation dated 28.4.81 which was granted to the plaintiff society for its Laxman Pubic School by Directorate of Education are still in existence, subsisting, were never withdrawn or lapsed and are continuing and in force till date and the impugned recognition dated 19.7.83 granted to defendant No. 5 is absolutely illegal, has even otherwise admittedly lapsed and is liable to be quashed. Hence, it was prayed to grant relief as mentioned in the plaint.
2. Defendants appeared and contested the suit and separate written statements were filed by defendants No. 1 to 3, 4 and 6 respectively and contents of plaint were denied. The written statement filed by defendant No. 6 was adopted by defendants No. 5 and 7.
3. During proceedings none appeared on behalf of the defendants No. 1 to 3, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.10.1986 and again defendants No. 1 to 4 and 8 did not appear, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 9.5.1994.
S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.7/30Later on they again started appearing and appearance was off and on but not regular.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 19.09.2000:-
1) Whether the suit has been signed, verified and filed by the duly authorised person?OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration in the suit against respective defendants?OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as claimed against respective defendants?OPP
4) Whether the suit is barred by the provisions contained under section 80 of CPC against defendant No. 1, 2 and 3?OPD 1 to 3.
5) Whether the suit is barred by the provisions contained under Delhi Administration Act? OPD
6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing of the present suit? OPD
7) Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under section 10 of the CPC as claimed by the defendant No. 6?OPD-6.
8) Relief.
5. In evidence, plaintiff examined eight witnesses in support of its case i.e. PW-1 Sh. Sushil Kumar Kala, PW-2 Sh. R.K. Chawla, PW-3 Sh. Bala Krishan, PW-4 Sh. Anand Singh Bisht, PW-5 Sh. Purushottam Goyal, PW-6 Mrs. Shashi Gupta, PW-7 Sh. S.N. Sharma and PW-8 Sh. Prabhat Raman.
S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.8/306. In defence, defendant No. 4 submitted that he does not want to lead any evidence and rest of defendants were already ex-parte. Accordingly, D.E. was closed vide order dated 21.12.2011.
7. I have heard arguments and perused the record. My issue-wise finding is given below:-
8. Issue No. 1. Whether the suit has been signed, verified and filed by the duly authorised person?OPP:- The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. The present suit has been signed, filed and verified by Mr. Prabhat Raman, Secretary of plaintiff society, who is the authorised signatory of society as per the Memorandum of Association. The memorandum of Association and rules regulations of society is Ex. PW-8/1, registration certificate of the society is Ex. PW-8/2, resolution dated 21.2.1984 is Ex. PW-8/3 and all these documents are duly available on record. Hence, it is proved that suit has been signed, verified and filed by the duly authorised person. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
9. Issue No. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration in the suit against respective defendants?OPP and Issue No. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as claimed against respective defendants?OPP:- Both these issues are taken up together as both issues are inter-connected. Onus of proving both these issues was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has proved that the plaintiff society S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.9/30 applied to and pursued with DDA for obtaining land for opening another school in Delhi letters exchanged for this are Ex 8/4 (pages 1-4). Consequently DDA alloted 7 acres ( five acres for building and two acres for playground) instituional land in Masjid Moth and Hauz Khas Area, at Sarai Sahji, Kalu Sarai and Shahpur Jat to the plaintiff. Plaintiff Society took possession of the above land in 1974 and wrote letter to DDA dated 18/19.1.74 regarding plot (Ex. PW-8/31). Plaintiff paid full prescribed price for such land which was a substantial payment at that time, the documents pertaining to this are Ex. PW-8/4. Letter of DDA to plaintiff regarding stamping of perpetual lease deed is Ex. PW-8/4 and regarding redemarcation of land is Ex. PW-8/4. The perpetual lease deed of this land is Ex. PW-8/5. The copies of the documents received through RTI from DDA are collectively exhibited as Ex. PW-8/4. "Laxman Public School", on the above piece of land was sought to be established after making suitable accommodations and sanitary facilities thereupon which is proved by Health Certificate dated 4.8.79 of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Ex. PW-8/8. Income expenditure statement for the year 1978-79 shows substantial expenditure by plaintiff and is marked as Ex. PW-8/20A. The plaintiff applied to the Directorate of Education Delhi Administration, defendant No. 3 herein, in the prescribed form for the grant of recognition to the Laxman Public School. The defendant No. 3 accorded recognition up to Middle School to the plaintiff society vide letter 21.03.1980 Ex.
S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.10/30PW-8/6 and further upgraded the school upto secondary level vide its letter dated 28.04.1981 Ex. PW 8/7. Since then the said recognition and up-gradation were never withdrawn/lapsed.
10.The affiliating Board CBSE, Defendant No. 4, on application dated 2.8.80 Ex. PW-8/8 granted the affiliation to plaintiff's Laxman Public School up to secondary level vide its letter dated 5.6.82 which is Ex. PW-8/8 at Page 7. As admitted in written statement in reply by the CBSE Def No. 4 herein, the affiliation to Laxman Public School was also granted to the school run only by and under the plaintiff Society, on an application for the same dated 2.8.80 which is exhibited as Ex. PW-8/8. From all documents, it is clear that the school is established and run by plaintiff society and documents also mention clearly plaintiff society registration no., existing classes and sections and student strength, exam results of 1978-79 and 1979-80 and further that the school had its own 7 acres land and sizeable building and sufficient sanitary facilities, furniture, library books, reserve fund, income and expenditure for 1979-80. It is proved that the Laxman Public School was run exclusively by the plaintiff society only. It is brought on record that permanent school no. (affiliation), 27338 was allotted by the said defendant no. 4 CBSE to the school of the plaintiff at the time of the above affiliation in 1982 and the same affiliation number, in its recently expanded form, by which two zeros have been inserted after first three digits in all affiliation numbers, i.e. 2730038 is continuing till date. It is made out that the S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.11/30 impugned recognition dated 19.7.83 being wholly illegal and a nullity is even otherwise meaningless, irrelevant and in any case admittedly already lapsed and has never been revalidated or granted afresh to LPS Society and in any case could never have been granted to it, in law, in the first instance. Letter of LPS Society to Lt. Governor Dated 26.9.86 appealing for continuation of impugned recognition dated 19.7.83 which had already lapsed and did not continue, is already exhibited as Ex. PW-8/8 page 56. The recognition dated 21.03.1980 is absolute and further it was never withdrawn nor it ever lapsed till date, nor was any such withdrawal or lapse communicated nor could have been communicated by the Directorate of Education to the plaintiff till date, since no conditions ever existed for the withdrawal or lapse of the above recognition as per provisions of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules 1973. This is since the plaintiff and its school met all the conditions as provided in the Act and the Rules for the above recognition and upgradation granted to the plaintiff was used well within one year, the school never ceased to function, it was never shifted to another locality and neither was it transferred by the plaintiff to any other different trust, society, individual or a group of individuals, with or without any previous approval of the appropriate authority nor any notice or 'show cause' whatsoever as provided in Sec 4 and Rule 55 and 56 of the above Act and Rules, for withdrawal or lapse of the above recognition was ever served upon it till date. The school was S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.12/30 established and run by the plaintiff and was duly recognized by Directorate of Education is also substantiated by the enquiry report of Directorate of Education sent to DDA is Ex PW 8/4 (page 10), this clearly states that the Navshakti had been in possession of the land and it has established they were running Laxman Public School on the above land and that this school is duly recognized as such by the Directorate of Education and that neither the plaintiff has transferred nor it intends to transfer the same to any one. The above recognition dated 21.3.80 and upgradation dated 28.4.81 are still in existence, subsistence and in force is proved by letter dated 30.3.93 from the Statistical Branch of defendant No. 3 written to Superintendent Delhi High Court with copy to Local Commissioner in Suit No. 1454/84, which states that as per official records of defendant No. 3 Recognition to Laxman Public School was granted in 1980 and upgradation to secondary level granted in 1981 as per Ex. PW-8/8 page 222 and further proved by noting dated 08.09.2003 of ADE (Act) of defendant No. 3 showing that school is recognised vide letter No. 1218, dated 21.3.80 placed on page 48/C of the Ex. PW-4/2 which is the recognition granted to plaintiff. This is marked as Ex. PW-4/2 ( page 56/N of notings)
11.It is also proved that the plaintiff as per the requirement of the Act, and the Rules, constituted a Managing Committee for the above school under Rule 59 and framed a scheme of management under section 5 of the act read with Rule 59 which are marked as Exhibit S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.13/30 PW-4/2 page numbers 2/C to 17/C and defendant no. 6 Laxman Aggarwal who was appointed as Chairman of the Managing Committee of the plaintiff's school (Laxman Public School) with a malafide intent, and fraudulent motive wanted to grab the lease hold plot and the school belonging to the plaintiff, in collusion and conspiracy with the concerned officials of the DDA, behind the back of the plaintiff society. He maneuvered to procure the issuance of a show cause notice dated 10.9.1979 Ex. PW-8/8 (page 177-178) to the plaintiff society on the allegation that the said plot of land was transferred to the Laxman Public School without the previous consent of the Lessor in writing. Plaintiff had replied that Laxman Public School and its premises were in possession of plaintiff society and had not been transferred or assigned directly or indirectly to any other body and there has been no breach and misuse of any clause or covenants of the lease deed or agreement in any manner whatsoever and that Laxman Public School was established, run and managed only by plaintiff. This reply which was jointly signed by Sh Radha Raman President of plaintiff society, Sh L.S. Agarwal Chairman of School Managing Committee, Sh D.D. Chopra Secretary of plaintiff soxiety and Sh R.D.Goyal Manager of school, dated 17.9.1979 is collectively marked as Ex. PW-8/8. Further plaintiff's reply is dated 15.11.80 to DDA's letter dated 5.11.80 is Ex. PW-8/4 (page 14).
12.It is also proved that DDA which had further purported to cancel the S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.14/30 lease of the land, after due verification and being fully convinced about the truthfulness of the facts contained in the above reply of the Plaintiff society, which were reinforced by above mentioned confidential Report of Enquiry Conducted by Directorate of Education dated 24.4.80 restored the lease vide their letter dated 8.1.81 Ex. PW 8/4 (page 16) in supersession of and withdrawing their earlier cancellation notice on the condition that the plaintiff shall start construction of school building within six months and complete the construction within two years. It is proved that the school of the plaintiff was functioning with regular meetings of the Managing Committee duly appointed by the plaintiff as is clear from letter dated 4.10.80 by R.D.Goyal manager of school to Sh Ajay Raman member of school Managing Committee, showing clearly on the top that the school is running under plaintiff society. It is also made out that meanwhile when this above exchange was going on between DDA and the plaintiff society and the lease of land had not yet been restored by DDA, Mr. L.S. Aggarwal tried to bring in Laxman Public School Society and maliciously tried to get the land taken away from plaintiff and allotted to his above society through proposing to pass such resolution and suddenly recasting the earlier normal agenda dated 20.11.80 marked as Ex. PW-8/9, for meeting of school managing committee. As this was wholly illegal and against the rights and interests of the plaintiff society which was the parent society of Laxman Public School, the plaintiff dissolved this S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.15/30 Managing Committee on 22.11.80. The said fact was duly communicated to the Defendant No.3 vide telegram dated 22.11.1980 Ex. PW-8/11 and letter dated 23.11.1980 Ex. PW-8/11 A. It is also brought on record that after dissolution of the above Managing Committee the defendant No. 6 and Laxman Foundation, of which the defendant No. 6 is the Chairman, on 27.01.1981 filed a false and frivolous petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act against the plaintiff society in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was registered as Suit No. 47-A of 1981 and obtained an ex-parte order against plaintiff society to maintain 'status quo' on 05.02.1981 Ex. PW-1/1, with the consequence that the plaintiff could not fully constitute and install the new Managing Committee of which although names were sent to the Directorate of Education, and could not start the construction of the building due to the order of the court to maintain status quo as of 05.02.1981. However on this date the previously appointed Managing Committee of the school which included the President and Secretary of the plaintiff Society remained since status quo of this date was ordered by the Hon'ble High Court. This Managing committee list does not mention any other society or trust except the plaintiff society, which however under Chairmanship of defendant No. 6 at his behest was acting against plaintiff's interest. To make the matter worse for the plaintiff, it is proved that defendant No. 6 and Laxman Foundation during the pendency of the said suit and status quo in collusion and S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.16/30 conspiracy with the officials of the DDA manipulated issuance of letters to Plaintiff asking about progress of building to which it was replied that because of the Status Quo order of 5.2.81, the Plaintiff was handicapped and could not start any construction, lest he will be committing contempt of the Hon'ble High Court, vide letter dated 5.4.81 Ex. PW-8/4 (page 17-19) plaintiff replied vide letters dated 19.1.82 which is Ex. PW-8/4 (page 21-22), enclosing the status quo order once again. The Plaintiff also informed that it was following up the matter vigorously in court to get status quo vacated and requested DDA to bear with it till status quo was vacated. But to utter surprise DDA despite knowledge of the pendency of Suit no. 47-A of 1981 and the 'Status Quo' order dated 5.2.1981 wrongly cancelled the allotment of the Plaintiff vide its letter dated 02.08.1982 on the ground that the society has failed to complete the construction of the building within a period of two years from the date of cancellation notice i.e. 12.11.1980. Ex. PW-8/14. Plaintiff replied to DDA vide its letter dated 25.8.82 making detailed submissions and giving reasons for non-completion of construction during the period indicated above. Ex. PW-8/4 (page 27). Thus, it can be inferred that filing of Suit no. 47-A/1981 and taking the injunction order of Status Quo dated 5.2.81 were only a mean to create conditions under which the Plaintiff could not comply with the conditions as contained in the letter dated 8.1.81 and thereby leading to cancellation of allotment of the plaintiff.
S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.17/3013.It is significant to note here that it was well within the knowledge of DDA and Directorate of Education that the land was being applied for Laxman Public School which is already established and running by the plaintiff and duly recognized by Directorate of Education, Govt of Delhi as well as duly affiliated with the CBSE and the documents are clearly showing so, yet the application was being processed in favour of the Laxman Public School Society defendant No. 5 herein completely behind the back of the plaintiff and without trying to clarify anything from the plaintiff who has established and is running and managing the school in question and the thus this sham and fraud was enacted and was perpetuated. As per record, on 5.7.82 the Deputy Director (Capital Works) (henceforth called DDE(CW)) of Directorate of Education defendant No. 3 herein, asked its Dy Director Education (South) to give report on the application of LPS Society for allotment of land as it pertained to existing duly recognized Laxman Public School falling in south district. A note dated 31.7.82 of the Education Officer of Zone 8 pertaining to Laxman Public School notes is as follows: "...that the Laxman Public School which is an unaided school has been started and being run by the Navshakti Educational Society to whom the recognition of the school was granted and also to whom the present plot had been allotted..... there is no record in this office showing that the control of the above said school has ever been transferred to the Laxman Public School Society...." This is Ex. PW-8/8 page 57. It is clear that S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.18/30 the Directorate of Education knew very well that all these applications pertained to the existing school recognized under plaintiff society and also that the plaintiff had never transferred the control of Laxman Public School Society but it still went on to aid the illegal designs of L.S. Agarwal to help him grab this school by granting illegal permissions and recommendations. It is also brought on record that during the pendency of the said suit No. 47-A of 1981, defendant No. 6 wrote a letter dated 16.03.1982,which is Ex. PW-8/24 to the Directorate of Education for "Allotment of Higher Secondary School site at Hauz Khas" and in reply to the said letter, Directorate of Education vide its letter dated 03.04.1982 which is Ex. PW-8/32 sought for various details. Defendant No. 5 through defendant No. 6 in purported compliance requirements of letter dated 03.04.1982, vide its letter dated 05.06.1982 Ex. PW-8/33 sent the application for allotment of land with a request that its case "be processed at the earliest". Enclosures sent therewith regarding the class wise strength, rates of tuition fee, staff statement and scheme of management, however, pertained to Laxman Public School which was run under plaintiff society. DDA in its letter to def no. 5 LPS Society dated. 30.7.82 asked them to get the case processed for land sponsored by def no. 3 Director of Education. Since the defendant No. 3 was aware that the land for which the defendant No. 6 is seeking allotment in favour of defendant No. 5 is the same which already stands allotted to Nav Shakti Educational Society and S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.19/30 the said society is running Laxman Public School, doubts were raised about the bonafide of the application of sponsorship and request for allotment. To come out of this situation, defendant No. 5, Laxman Public School Society vide its letter dated 28.08.1982 Ex. PW-8/34, illegally wrote to Education Officer to the effect that "Navshakti Educational Society has ceased to exist for this school and that the Laxman Public School Society was prepared to take over the school and that the essentiality certificate be granted to them." No care was taken to ask Plaintiff Society whether they were willing to transfer their Laxman Public School to anybody else or not or whether they had anything to say in this matter, against all principals of natural justice, equity and fair play. The Deputy Director Education (Planning) wrote a letter dated: 13.11.82 which is Ex. PW-8/8 page 30-31 to the Laxman Public School Society stating that the application for essentiality appeared to be for existing Laxman Public School which was already recognized under Navshakti Educational Society and that resolution of Navshakti is required for making such an application. In its reply defendant No. 5 falsely denied that essentiality was sought for Laxman Public School and stated that it was for new school, thereby concealing material and relevant facts. This is Ex. PW-8/8 at page 32. It is clear that Directorate of Education fraudulently, mischievously, dishonestly and in collusion and conspiracy with Shri L.S. Aggarwal acting upon the mere self asserted statement of Laxman Public School Society S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.20/30 that the Navshakti Educational Society has ceased to exist for the school, not only granted the essentially certificate dated 5.1.83, under rule 44 of the Act & Rules which is permission for opening of 'new' school and it can never be granted for an existing recognized school Ex. PW-8/8 page 50-51. Defendant No. 6 and Laxman Foundation after hobnobbing with the officials of the DDA and the concerned officials of the Directorate of Education after getting 'Essentiality' from defendant No. 3 and an assurance of allotment of the said plot in their favour (letter dated 18.12.1982) withdrew the suit no. 47A /81 on 19.01.83 Ex. PW-1/2 on false and deceitful pretext that they would compromise the matter with the plaintiff and the talks for that were going on. To make the matter worse, defendant No. 3 also recommended to the DDA, to allot the land at Hauz Khas, i.e. on which the plaintiff's school was running, to the Laxman Public School Society vide letter dated 27.1.83 Ex. PW-8/4 page 30-50, without making any reference to the plaintiff society and completely behind the back off the plaintiff. It is clear that plaintiff never did anything wrong or detrimental and land could not be snatched from the plaintiff. Noting of Education Officer of defendant No. 3 dated 06.06.1983 which is Ex. PW-8/8 page 23 to 28 states that at no time the Navshakti Education Society had intimated the office of defendant No. 3 that it is no more running and controlling the Laxman Public School. Neither it had ever informed that it had either closed or transferred the school to some S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.21/30 other society. As a parent body of the above said school all the assets and liabilities belonged to it i.e. the Navshakti Education Society. It further states that nothing had been heard from Navshakti Education Society which is the parent body to whom the recognition of Laxman Public School had been granted by the defendant No. 3. The action of Delhi Development Authority on 09.02.1983 allotting the land in question to Laxman Public School Society appears wrong and bad in law. Engineer Officer and other officers to recover possession of the land could not be deputed by DDA. AIR 1999 Supreme Court 997 State of UP Vs Lucknow Development Authority clearly says that even though lease is cancelled, still lessor can take the possession only in a manner recognised by law. It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "A lessor, with the best of title, has no right to resume possession extra judicially by use of force, from a lessee, even after the expiry or earlier termination of the lease by forfeiture or otherwise. The use of the expression 're-entry' in the lease-deed does not authorise extra judicially methods to resume possessions. Under law, the possession of a lessee, even after the expiry or its earlier termination is juridical possession and forcible dispossession is prohibited; a lessee cannot be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. In the instant case the fact that the lessor is the state does not place it in any higher or better position.
S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.22/30
On the contrary, it is under an additional inhibition
stemming from the requirement that all actions of
Government and Governmental authorities should have a 'legal pedigree',. Therefore, there is no question in the instant case of the Government thinking of appropriating to itself an extra judicial right of re-entry. Possession can be resumed by Government only in a manner known to or recognised by law. It cannot resume possession otherwise than in accordance with law. Government is, accordingly, prohibited from taking possession otherwise than in due course of law". Allegedly possession was formally resumed by the Delhi Development Authority on 18.03.1983 and was handed over to the Laxman Public School society on the same day i.e. 18.03.1983 (simultaneously). It is pertinent to note that all the earlier letters of DDA were always written to the plaintiff society at its office address at 11, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi but deliberately to act completely behind the back of the plaintiff society and to absolutely prevent the plaintiff from having any knowledge whatsoever about the illegal drama and sham which was to be enacted by DDA, DDA wrote a letter on same day i.e. dated 18.3.1983 not addressed to the Society at its official address, but to the Manager of the School at Hauz Khas asking him to hand over possession. The Manager is not at all authorized to hand over the property of the plaintiff to anybody and neither any such possession could in law ever be taken like this, S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.23/30 especially when it's not a vacant piece of land and there was full fledged school being run by the Plaintiff. The Manager who was already in collusion with the Defendant No.6 and had been earlier suspended by plaintiff conveniently handed over the possession to DDA and the same was simultaneously delivered to Defendant No.5. The matter was also taken up in House of Delhi Metropolitan Council. The Minutes of the house are Ex. PW-8/23.
Statement/Affidavit of Sh Purushottam Goyal who was the then Chairman (now called Speaker) of the Delhi Metropolitan Council is Ex. PW-5/1 and they are also in favour of plaintiff. Further the Directorate and the def No.5 and 6 herein knew fully well that as per provisions of the Act and Rules no 'Essentiality' under Rule 44, could be granted for an already existing duly recognized school. All this was being done during the pendency of Status quo dated 5.2.81 and completely behind the back of the plaintiff to illegally and collusively snatch away the school established and run by the plaintiff. It is very important to observe here that had this illegal essentiality not been granted in this fraudulent manner, the recommendation by defendant No. 3 to DDA for land and the impugned recognition dated 19.7.83, both could not have been granted to the defendants. Recognition and up-gradation from class 1st to VIII and thereafter for IX and X, in favor of the Navshakti Educational Society for Laxman Public School which had been granted in 1980 & 1981 is still subsisting and has not been withdrawn or lapsed which fact even S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.24/30 otherwise was within the knowledge of the Directorate of Education and yet the Directorate of Education vide letter dated 19.7.83, purported to straight away grant recognition to the said Laxman Public School Society from class 1st to Senior Secondary Level, i.e. Class XII, with effect from academic session 1983-84. Actually it is only recognition dated 21.3.80 and upgradation dated 28.4.1981 granted to the plaintiff society which is still operative. The subsequent recognition dated 19.7.1983 (which as per the letter of the defendant No. 3, 30.03.93 Ex. PW-8/8 at page.222 written to Supdtt. Delhi High Court, was only up-gradation upto Sr. Secondary level) has since lapsed as per the own averments of the defendant No. 3, in their Written Statement and thereafter the subsequent upgradation for Senior Secondary level by Directorate of Education and permission for Senior Secondary Classes by CBSE have both been granted without prejudice and subject to orders of the court. The subsequent permissions for Senior Secondary classes can only be based on recognition and upgradation granted to plaintiff, which is subsisting till today as it has neither ever been withdrawn by Director of Education, and nor has it ever lapsed nor has any notice for the same ever sent to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 3 till date. Thus as necessary corollary the only school which is being run at Hauz Khas under the name and style of Laxman Public School is the one which has been started by the plaintiff i.e. Navshakti Educational Society. It is made out that the plaintiff's school S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.25/30 continued to run exactly in the same manner, the same condition, with the same staff, with the same students, with the same apparatus, the same equipment, the same building, the same furniture and on the same plot as it was on March 18, 1983 as well as before and after that date. No change whatsoever in any manner or in any position took place when the alleged act of 18.3.1983 transpired. The same school is continuing and functioning till today without any break whatsoever. Thus the plaintiff has proved these issues and it is held that the Laxman Public School Society, defendant No. 5 herein which was even otherwise a newly formed society and did not even have audited accounts, was granted essentiality, recommendation for land to DDA and recognition dated 19.7.1983 by defendant No.3 wrongly and in collusion with defendants No. 5 and 6 and further that the actions of defendants No. 1 to 8 to jeopardize the rights and interest of the plaintiff are wrong, unwarranted and do not affect the rights of the plaintiff. These issues are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
14.Issue No. 4. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions contained under section 80 of CPC against defendant No. 1, 2 and 3?OPD 1 to 3:- Under this issue, the plaintiff was required to prove as to whether notice U/s 80 CPC had served or not. In the plaint itself, it has been mentioned in para No. 49 of the plaint that notice U/s 80 CPC dated 29.5.1986 was served on the defendants S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.26/30 and same is Ex. PW-8/29 and Ex. PW-8/29 B. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff and it is held that suit is not barred.
15.Issue No. 5. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions contained under Delhi Administration Act? OPD:- In the present case, the Lt. Governor is party, Delhi Administration is also party and all necessary parties are before the court. It cannot be stated that suit cannot be effectively decided and any other party was required. It has not been made out as to how the suit is bad under Delhi Administration Act. Both Lt. Governor and Delhi Administration has been made party thus it cannot be stated that suit is barred and this issue is also decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
16.Issue No. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing of the present suit?OPD:- The onus of proving this issue was upon the defendant but not proved. No evidence has been led by defendant. Even otherwise all necessary facts are before this Hon'ble court and plaintiff has pleaded his case as needed and no act has been brought before this court which can be termed as estoppel on the part of plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff could have very much filed his suit as there was assertion of rights by plaintiff and denial of the same by defendants. Hence, in these circumstances, this issue is also decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff.
S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.27/3017.Issue No. 7. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under section 10 of the CPC as claimed by the defendant No. 6? OPD-6:- No pleadings have been proved before this court regarding other suit. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has stated that other suit was for declaration regarding the cancellation of lease rights of the plaintiff society by DDA and has nothing to do with present matter wherein the prayers are altogether different regarding the act and conduct of defendants No. 5 to 8 with respect to continuation of Laxman Public School and with respect to recognition granted by Directorate of Education i.e. defendant No. 3 and affiliation given by CBSE i.e. defendant No. 4 and has nothing to do with suit already pending, hence in these circumstances, it cannot be stated that suit is liable to be stayed because cause of action is altogether different in both the suits. Hence, this issue is also decided in favour of plaintiff.
18.Relief:- In view of the above observation, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and decreed with costs. However, it has to be kept in mind that relief is required to be modified in present circumstances, because fate of number of students is involved and the fate of children cannot be sealed. The impugned recognition dated 19.7.1983 granted by defendant No. 2 and 3 to defendant No. 5 for Laxman Public School under its alleged management is held to be wholly wrongful, illegal, ultravires, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, malafide, obtained on the basis of misrepresentation, collusive, S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.28/30 fraudulent and in utter violation of the mandatory provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules 1973. The defendant No. 5 and defendant No. 6, its assignees, heirs, LRs etc. alongwith defendant No. 7 and 8 acting individually or through Laxman Public School Society i.e. defendant No. 5 are not entitled to run Laxman Public School. Merely since defendant No. 6, its assignees, successors, agents, servants, officials, LRs etc. have formed the society under the name of Laxman Public School Society they or defendant No. 5 society cannot be allowed to run Laxman Public School. It is only the plaintiff i.e. Navshakti Educational Society which is entitled to run and manage Laxman Public School (by whatever name called and even if continued under the present name) under its name and banner. It is only the plaintiff Navshakti Educational Society which is entitled to apply for and obtain any recognition, upgradations or permissions from defendant No. 1 to 3 and affiliations from defendant No. 4 or from any other affiliating board for Laxman Public School situated at Hauz Khas, New Delhi. All recognitions and upgradations granted for Laxman Public School including for Senior Secondary classes shall stand and be deemed to be only in the name of the plaintiff society. Affiliation granted by CBSE for Laxman Public School up to senior secondary level shall stand and deemed to be in the name of plaintiff. In the interests of the students studying in the Laxman Public School and to ensure that there is no disruption or disturbance in their studies, the present school shall S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.29/30 continue to run undisturbed but it shall be deemed to be run under the name and banner of the plaintiff Navshakti Educational Society till all formalities of taking over are completed by the plaintiff and it shall continue to run thereafter without any break or disruption. Senior Secondary classes shall continue to run till all formalities of taking over are completed by the plaintiff and shall continue thereafter, all permissions and upgradations by defendant No. 2 and 3 and affiliation granted by defendant No. 4 for senior secondary classes shall deem to be only in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 5 to 8 acting on their own or through their servants, agents, heirs, assignees, LRs etc. are restrained from applying for or obtaining any recognition or upgradation from defendant No. 2 and 3 and any affiliation from defendant No. 4 or from any other affiliating boards for Laxman Public School (Even if run by in nay other name whatsoever) situated at Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Defendant No. 1 to 4 are duty bound to take all necessary steps and actions to ensure the compliance of above order and relief granted in favour of plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared, accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on (AJAY GOEL)
10.01.2012 SCJ cum RC(Central)/Delhi.
S.No-633/06/02/86 Page No.30/30