Allahabad High Court
Dhanraj Singh vs Director Of Education (Basic) U.P. And 4 ... on 18 September, 2019
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 809 of 2019 Appellant :- Dhanraj Singh Respondent :- Director Of Education (Basic) U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 2 of 2019
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Learned Standing Counsel states that he does not propose to file any written objection and Court may look into the question whether delay has been explained satisfactory or not after hearing learned counsel for appellant and may pass appropriate order.
3. After hearing learned counsel for appellant and going through the affidavit filed in support of this application, we are of the view that delay in filing appeal has been explained satisfactorily.
4. Condoned.
5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
6. Let appeal be registered with regular number and old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two number. Order Date :- 18.9.2019 Siddhant Sahu Court No. - 34 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 809 of 2019 Appellant :- Dhanraj Singh Respondent :- Director Of Education (Basic) U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondents and perused the material available on record.
2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from judgement dated 16.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge interpreting Rule 4 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2010") holding that aforesaid Rules provide a distance within which at least one school must be established but nowhere provides that more than one school within said distance cannot be established. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for petitioner that there is a prohibition on establishing more than one school within said distance is misconceived.
3. In view thereof, we find no manifest error in the judgment of learned Single Judge.
4. Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.9.2019 Siddhant Sahu