Unnati Pharmacy College And 3 ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 19820 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:152721
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14677 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Unnati Pharmacy College And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shukla,Ram Prakash Upadhyay,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
with
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6495 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Shri Girraj Maharaja Institute Of Management And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shukla,Ram Prakash Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
with
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3768 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Unnati Pharmacy College And 12 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This is a bunch of three writ petitions connected with each other. Although, Writ-C No.3768 of 2021 has been shown to have been decided on 30.05.2022, as printed in the cause list, I have perused the entire order sheet of the said writ petition and I find that two withdrawal applications were filed in the said writ petition and two orders were passed thereon, one on 30.05.2022 and the other on 25.02.2022, whereby, the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn respectively on behalf of the petitioners No.7, 9, 10 and 5 and 8. There are total 13 writ petitioners in Writ-C No.3768 of 2021 and therefore, after withdrawal of the writ petition by aforesaid five writ petitioners, the writ petition has been heard on merits on behalf of remaining eight writ petitioners. The erroneous description contained in the cause list today is explained as such.

3. Writ-C No.3768 of 2021 has been filed challenging the orders dated 28.12.2020 and 13.01.2021 whereby the Director of Social Welfare had directed constitution of an Inquiry Committee comprising of three members for the purposes of conducting physical verification of different courses run by various institutions, such as MBA, BBA, BCA, B-Pharma, D-Pharma and Polytechnic.

4. This Court by an interim order dated 04.02.2021 stayed the operation of the said impugned orders inviting response from the respondents.

5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in the said writ petition and the dispute which has been raised by the State is with regard to alleged fabrication made by the petitioners in so far as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition is concerned, i.e. order dated 28.12.2020. A clear stand has been taken in the counter affidavit that the said order was never issued from the office of the Director and the same has been forged. There is no dispute about the second order impugned dated 13.01.2021.

6. The record reveals, as also noted in various orders passed by the authorities including the State Government, that in so far as the alleged forgery part is concerned, criminal investigation is pending. This Court is not competent atleast in this bunch of writ petitions to comment upon validity of the criminal proceedings which are admittedly pending.

7. In so far as the merits of Writ-C No.3768 of 2021 are concerned, the precise submission of Sri Khare is that the Director had no competence to order inquiry into the matter as the State Government is competent authority to take decision, if certain irregularities etc are found during the course of investigation/ preliminary inquiry etc.

8. The main controversy appears to be covered by Writ-C No.14677 of 2023. In the said writ petition, the order impugned dated 21.03.2023 has been issued by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare, U.P., Lucknow whereby the earlier decision taken by the District Level Inquiry Committee not to forward the documents and data of the concerned institutions has been held to be justified while rejecting the petitioners' representation dated 04.11.2022.

9. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the order impugned has been passed mainly relying upon the first information report lodged against the concerned accused in relation to fabrication of the order dated 28.12.2020 annexed along with Writ-C No.3768 of 2021. Further submission is that in so far as the inquiry/ physical verification of the petitioner institutions is concerned, though the order refers to some inquiries held pursuant to the letters dated 12.02.2021 and 18.07.2021, there is absolutely no consideration of inquiry report dated 26.07.2021 submitted by the District Magistrate. The said report has been annexed as Annexure No.23 to the writ petition which shows that on physical verification as well as after telephonic conversation made with the students of different courses, it was found that on account of spread of Pandemic Covid-19 restrictions, online classes were being conducted in the institutions and the candidates were found receiving education. It is, therefore, contended that any opinion formed by the respondents that in physical verification, lesser number of students were found in different courses, is contrary to the inquiry report dated 26.07.2021. In so far as other allegations contained in the order impugned are concerned, it has been argued that the same do not relate to the petitioner institutions but against 71 or 76 private ITI institutions where the allegation is of misappropriating the scholarship amount. It is, therefore, contended that only two grounds exist so as to dis-entitle the petitioners for further proceedings; first, pendency of criminal proceedings pursuant to the FIR in relation to alleged forgery committed with regard to order dated 28.12.2020 and the second ground is that documents were not provided by the petitioner institutions which could justify presence of students in different courses.

10. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents annexing therewith a letter dated 10.11.2022 issued by the District Social Welfare Officer. The said letter also refers to 71 or 76 ITIs and the allegation of misappropriation of scholarship amount by them. In so far as the petitioner institutions are concerned, the stand taken by the State is the same which was noted in the State Government's order dated 21.03.2023 impugned in the writ petition, that is to say that on physical verification, lesser number of students were found in the institutions and as per the conditions contained in the letter dated 02.02.2021, the institutions had not furnished requisite documents.

11. From perusal of the record, I find that there is a report of 9 Members Committee, dated 30.03.2022, which was assailed by the petitioner by means of Writ-C No.27605 of 2022. This Court, by order dated 19.10.2022, disposed of the writ petition in the following terms:-

"Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

The present petition has been filed challenging the decision of the District Scholarship Approval Committee not to forward the necessary documents for release of scholarship and fee reimbursement of the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and also to recommend to the State Government the case of the petitioners' institution to be blacklisted and for de-affiliation.

It appears from a reading of the minutes dated 20.3.2022 of the District Scholarship Approval Committee that the said decision has been taken on the ground that the institutions are alleged to be involved in certain financial irregularities and first information report has been registered against them.

The decision to de-affiliate or to blacklist the institutions shall be taken by the State Government. The decision to blacklist or de-affiliate the institutions and not to forward the necessary documents for release of scholarship and fee reimbursement to the institutions are dependent on the same facts, i.e., the registration of the first information report and the alleged financial irregularities committed by the institutions.

In the circumstances, the petitioners may make a representation to the State Government, i.e., the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow against the decision dated 20.3.2022 of the District Scholarship Approval Committee and for release of the scholarship and fee reimbursement of the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and, in case, such a representation is made by the petitioners, the same shall be decided by the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow within a period of three months from the date of making the representation.

With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of."

12. In pursuance of the said order of this Court, the order impugned dated 21.03.2023 has been passed.

13. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that merely on account of pendency of the criminal proceedings, their data and documents are not being forwarded for further persuasion and, therefore, the students are suffering. The order impugned also speaks that as per the relevant clause of the Rules applicable for disbursement of scholarship, the institutions which committed misappropriation and fabrication with regard to obtaining the scholarship amount, shall be blacklisted and proceedings for their de-affiliation would be held.

14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that in so far as the allegation of misappropriation of scholarship amount is concerned, the same is not against the petitioners. The only thing which goes against the petitioners as on today is the pendency of criminal proceeding and I find that with regard to number of students receiving education, the inquiry report dated 26.07.2021 reads in favour of the petitioners and even in the counter affidavit, nothing has been stated with regard to the said inquiry, rather the entire thrust is upon pendency of the criminal proceedings.

15. In view of the above, without interfering with the criminal proceedings which may be going on against the concerned accused persons, the order impugned to the effect whereby a decision not to forward the documents and data of the petitioner institutions has been taken, is found to be unsustainable.

16. It is made clear that this Court is neither commenting upon other aspects of the matter which may be relied upon by the respondents while taking any other decision after holding due proceedings but in so far as not forwarding data on the aforesaid two grounds is concerned, the order impugned cannot sustain in view of the discussions made herein above.

17. Writ-C No.14677 of 2023 is allowed. The order impugned dated 21.03.2023 passed by the State Government is quashed.

18. While concluding this judgment it is observed that in so far as two orders impugned in Writ-C No.3768 of 2021, i.e. 28.12.2020 and 13.01.2021 are concerned, regarding genuineness of the order dated 28.12.2020, no comment is being made as the matter is already pending before the criminal investigating agency. In so far as the order dated 13.01.2021 is concerned, since by the said order only Three Member Inquiry Committee was constituted whereas pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Writ-C No.27605 of 2022, the State Government has already taken a decision based upon a different inquiry report prepared by committee comprising of 9 members who are other than those described in the order dated 13.01.2021, the order dated 13.01.2021 impugned in Writ-C No.3768 of 2021 has lost its significance for all practical purposes.

19. In so far as Writ-C No.6495 of 2022 is concerned, since the only order under challenge is dated 13.01.2021, which has already been explained herein above in paragraph no.18 of this order, this petition stands disposed of as, in this writ petition, there is no allegation of forgery etc inasmuch as the order impugned is dated 13.01.2021 and not dated 28.12.2020.

20. Writ-C No.3768 of 2021 is dismissed as infructuous.

21. The respondents are directed to forward the documents and data of the petitioner institutions for the purposes of further proceedings.

22. This order order will not preclude the respondents to examine the aspects as to whether the petitioner institutions are genuinely claiming disbursement of scholarship or not. In this regard, the inquiry report dated 26.07.2021 shall be given due consideration without restraining any other inquiry.

Order Date :- 31.7.2023

AKShukla/-