Bombay High Court
Vikas Shikshan Sanstha Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 21 August, 2015
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
k
1/7
915 wp 8387.15 as .doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8387 OF 2015
1 Vikas Shikshan Sanstha
Durga Nagar, Vidyasagar Colony,
MIDC, Miraj, District Sangli,
Through its President.
2 Sanjay Gandhi Residential School
At Vidyasagar Colony,
Behind S.T. Work Shop,
Opp. Godrej Factory,
Near Durga Nagar, Miraj,
District Sangli
Through its Head Master ..... Petitioners
V/s
1 The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
School Educaion Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
2 The Director of Education
(Secondary) M.S., Pune.
3 Joint Director of Education,
Pune.
4 Deputy Director of Education,
Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur.
5 Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Sangli. ..... Respondents
Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar a/w Mr. Sagar A. Mane for Petitioners.
Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondents/State.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 21 AUGUST 2015
k
915 wp 8387.15 as .doc
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally.
2 The Petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 6 June
2015, accordingly, apart from prayer to set aside the same, prayed to
grant approval to the teachers and non-teaching employees and to
release the grant-in-aid for payment of salary to the employees, also
prayed for no coercive steps based upon the order against Petitioner
No.2 and not to treat the school as unauthorised.
3 This Court by order dated 12 September 2012 in a Writ Petition
No.7251 of 2012 filed by the Petitioners for the similar reasons/grounds
while allowing the Petition recorded as under:
"5. Clause-7.6 of the Secondary School Code provides as
under :
"7.6 The Management shall not shift any school run by it from
its existing location to any other location for any reason,
without prior written permission of Government. If the
Management shifts the school without prior permission of
Government, the recognition of such a school shall
automatically stand withdrawn on ground of such
unauthorised shifting."
6. In the present case, in our view, the order withdrawing
recognition is required to be reconsidered by the Deputy
Director of Education for two reasons. First and foremost,
k
915 wp 8387.15 as .doc
from the report of the Deputy Education Officer (Secondary)
dated 18 October 1993, it appears that the building of the
school had collapsed and the management was directed to
take steps to accommodate the students in alternate
premises. Immediately on 18 October 1993, the Education
Officer (Secondary) was informed about this. There are
subsequent communications which are also part of the
record. It would have been necessary for the Deputy Director
of Education to consider the provisions of Clause-7.6 of the
Secondary School Code having due regard to the facts which
have been placed on the record. Secondly, though the only
ground in the notice to show cause was that the school had
been closed, the Appellate Authority considered an additional
reason namely the results of the school for the year ending
March-1995. This was not a part of the notice to show cause.
To rely on that ground without notice to the Petitioners
constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.
7. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders of
the Deputy Director of Education and the Director of
Education (Secondary and Higher Secondary) dated 28 May
1995 and 25 June 2012. We remit the proceedings back to
the Deputy Director of Education for fresh consideration. We
clarify that we have not expressed any view on the suitability
of the premises in which the school is being run. It will be
open to the Deputy Director of Education to cause a report to
be obtained from the Education Officer (Secondary) in regard
to the existing premises where the school is being conducted
and the suitability of the premises for the purposes of
conducting a secondary school. Since the Petitioners now
k
915 wp 8387.15 as .doc
have notice of the second ground for withdrawal of
recognition proposed to be relied upon by the Department-
viz; that relating to the results, they would be at liberty to
respond thereto within four weeks. The Deputy Director of
Education is at liberty to issue a supplementary show cause
notice after a fresh inspection, if he considers it necessary.
The Deputy Director of Education shall pass a fresh order
within three months from the date on which an authenticated
copy of this order is produced on his record. All the rights and
contentions of the parties are kept open."
The Petitioners filed another Writ Petition No.6637 of 2013 against
the order of rejection of earlier Application and this Court on 13
September 2013 has recorded as under:
"1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and learned AGP for the respondents.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners state
that the petitioners will make an application within three
weeks from today in terms of Clause-7.6 of the Secondary
School Code to the appropriate Authority for grant of
permission for shifting the School.
3. Rule. Learned AGP waives service for the
respondents. Rule on interim relief is made returnable on 9th
December, 2013. If an application is made by the petitioners
under Clause-7.6 of the Secondary School Code to the
Competent Authority within a period of three weeks from
today, the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible
k
915 wp 8387.15 as .doc
and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date on
which the application is filed.
4. We make it clear that the prayer for interim relief can
be considered provided permission is granted to the
petitioners to shift the School."
5 Respondent No.4 by the impugned order has though referred to
the pendency of the Contempt Petition No.588 of 2014, rejected the
Petitioners' Application even by noting earlier communications dated 25
June 2012 and another order dated 5 December 2012 as stated, not
received by the Petitioners. No reason what so ever given on aspect of
shifting of school, but decided on the basis of stated withdrawal of
recognition of the school.
6 Un-communicated order dated 5 December 2012 therefore ought
not to have been the foundation of passing such order without
considering the Application for permission to shift the school. As
recorded already, the building collapsed due to heavy rains and
earthquake. There was specific direction issued as quoted above to
consider the case of permission to shift the school under clause 7.6 of
the Secondary School Code. But the learned Authority Respondent No.4
overlooked these relevant factors and has passed the unreasoned order.
The impugned order is unsustainable and requires interference from this
Court in view of the admitted position on record and specifically the
k
915 wp 8387.15 as .doc
circumstances which compelled the Petitioner to apply for shifting of
school.
7 The reference to clause 7.6 of the Secondary School Code,
cannot be read and utilized by overlooking the factual position in the
present case. The Petitioners' Management require to shift the school, in
the circumstances, which were beyond their control. The reasons that the
Management had shifted the school without permission of the
Government and the consequence order of automatic de-recognition of
the School, in our view, ought not to have been the foundation to reject
the Petitioners' Application. We are of the view that the Respondents to
reconsider the case on an assumption that Petitioners' school is
recognised on the date of Application in question. Therefore, we are
inclined to pass the following order:
Order
i) The impugned order dated 6 June 2015 is quashed and set aside;
ii) Respondent No.4 to reconsider the Applications filed by the
Petitioners in view of the observations so referred above, as early
as possible preferably within eight weeks;
iii) The Petitioners to appear before Respondent No.4 Authority on
1st September 2015;
iv) Respondent No.4 to pass an order by giving an opportunity to
all the concerned;
k
915 wp 8387.15 as .doc
v) Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs;
vi) Parties to act on the basis of authenticated copy of this order.
(A.A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
katkam
