Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Shri K.N. Gupta, senior counsel submits that under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) and as per Central Board of Secondary Education affiliation Bye-laws, the Collector has no authority, jurisdiction and competence to undertake the aforesaid exercise. He submits that the proceedings initiated by the Collector were without authority of law. There is no enabling provision which permits the Collector to decide the legality and validity of decision of petitioner relating to fee enhancement and other administrative matters. In addition, it is contended that in State of M.P. by Gazette notification 26.03.2011 the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (RTE Rules) were notified. As per these Rules also the Collector of Revenue District is not competent to undertake aforesaid exercise. It is also contended that proceedings were not in consonance with principle of natural justice. The impugned order is based on surmises and conjunctures. It is not a reasoned order and therefore, interference be made.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of judgments of Supreme Court, the petitioner has a fundamental right to run the school. This right flows from Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. No doubt, reasonable restrictions can be imposed but said restrictions can be only in accordance with Article 19 (6) of the Constitution. The restriction/regulation can be by way of a 'law' and cannot be through executive instruction. He submits that Annexure R-1 is based on Zila Yojna Samiti Act. The said Adhiniyam was introduced on foundation of Article 243ZD of the Constitution. As per Section 7 of Zila Yojna Samiti Act, certain powers are vested with the Committees. The question of fee regulation or implementation of RTE Act is beyond the purview of the said Committee. Hence, no delegation of power based on said Act will empower the Collector to take the impugned action. He submits that as per Section-8 of Zila Yojna Samiti Act, the Collector cannot be treated as Secretary for the purpose of the issues and subject involved. He relied on certain judgments of Supreme Court in support of his contention.

28. So far executive instructions mentioned in the Education Code are concerned, the same are of no assistance to the respondents. The definition of "local authority" U/RTE Act makes it clear that such authority must be having administrative control over the school as per the provisions of any law which is applicable for the time being. This cannot be done on the basis of executive instructions. More so, when RTE Act, 2009 and Rules came into being. Thus, power of Collector has to be traced from the RTE Act, Rules and C.B.S.E. bye-laws. In absence of any such provision which empowers the Collector in aforesaid provisions, I am unable to hold that the Collector was competent to undertake aforesaid exercise and pass the impugned orders. The Collector has also issued notice of contempt against the schools which is called in question in certain petitions including WP.No.5775/12. Thus, the ancillary question is whether Collector is competent to initiate contempt proceedings. This aspect is considered by Apex Court in AIR 1956 S.C. 66 (Brajnandan Sinha Vs. Jyoti Narain). The Apex Court opined that in order to constitute a Court in the strict sense of the term, an essential condition is that the Court should have, apart from having some of the trappings of a judicial tribunal, power to give a decision or a definitive judgment which has finality and authoritativeness which are the essential tests of a judicial pronouncement. These tests must be applied for determining what is a Court strictly so called within the connotation of the term as used in the Contempt of Courts Act.

34. This Court, at present, is not examining the action of institutions in constituting SMCs. Fixation of fee, transportation etc. These aspects and grievance of children/parents is to be looked into by the bodies/authorities empowered under the RTE Act, Rules and C.B.S.E. bye-laws. Thus, it will be the duty of said authorities to look into the said aspects in accordance with law.

35. The order of Collector is liable to be interfered with for yet another reason. This is settled in law that if a Statute provides a methodology to do a thing in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden. The control/Regulation over the private schools is to be gathered from RTE Act, Rules and CBSE Bye-laws. As noticed, under the said provisions, different authorities are equipped to take action in certain matters. The Collector does not have any such power under the said provisions. Thus, the action and order of Collector impugned herein cannot be upheld. The judgments cited by Shri Raghuvanshi are based on the peculiar facts of the said case and have no application in the factual matrix of the present matter.