Bombay High Court
Rajusingh Naik Shikshan Prasarak ... vs State Of Maharashtra & 4 Others on 21 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp4038.01
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION Nos. 4038 & 4039 OF 2001.
**********
WRIT PETITION No. 4038 OF 2001.
Rajusingh Naik Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Pusad, District Yavatmal
through its President Shri Arun
s/o. Punamchand Naik, aged 50
years, r/o. Near Fulaji Hospital,
Washim, Taluq and District
Washim. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Social
Justice Cultural Affairs and Sports
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Director of Social Welfare
State of Maharashtra,
Pune.
3. Divisional Social Welfare
Officer, Amravati Division,
Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:11:21 :::
Judgment wp4038.01
2
4. District Social Welfare Officer,
Washim, Taluq and District
Washim.
5. Shri Nathnange Maharaj Shikshan
Sanstha, a registered Public Trust
through its Secretary Shri Ratan
s/o Vithobaji Gid, aged about
38 years, r/o. At and post
Kinhiraja, Tahsil Malegaon,
District Akola. ....RESPONDENTS
.
ig WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4039 OF 2001.
Rajusingh Naik Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Pusad, District Yavatmal
through its President Shri Arun
s/o. Punamchand Naik, aged 50
years, r/o. Near Fulaji Hospital,
Washim, Taluq and District
Washim. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Social
Justice Cultural Affairs and Sports
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Director of Social Welfare
State of Maharashtra,
Pune.
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:11:21 :::
Judgment wp4038.01
3
3. Divisional Social Welfare
Officer, Amravati Division,
Amravati.
4. District Social Welfare Officer,
Washim, Taluq and District
Washim.
5. Gajadharji Rathod Bahuuddeshiya
Shikshan Sanstha, Wai (Gaul),
Tahsil Manora, District Washim
through its Secretary. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Shri R.B. Rathod,
Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. P.D. Rane and Mr. M.M. Ekre, Assistant Government Pleaders
for respondent no.1 State and its officers.
Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for respondent no.5 ( in W.P.No.4038/2001)
Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for respondent no.5 (in
W.P.No.4039/2001).
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
& P.N. DESHMUKH , JJ.
DATED : APRIL 21, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Very same petitioner has filed these two petitions questioning
order dated 06.10.2001, passed by the respondent no.1 State Government,
Judgment wp4038.01
whereby the earlier order transferring the Management of two basic Ashram
Schools, then run by the petitioners to respective respondent no.5 on
19.08.1998 and 14.12.1998 have been maintained. The Ashram Schools
were allotted to petitioners at place Kumbhi Tanda and Sonda, respectively
in then Washim Tahsil.
2. Challenge in Writ Petition No. 4038/2001 pertains to said school
at Sonda, administration of which has been handed over to respondent no.5
Shri Nathnange Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha. Challenge in Writ Petition
No.4039/2001, is about Ashram School at Kumbhi Tanda, which has been
allotted to respondent no.5 Gajadhar Rathod Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan
Sanstha.
3. We have heard Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel with
Shri R.B. Rathod, learned Counsel for petitioners, Ms. P.D. Rane and Shri
M.M. Ekre, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for respondent no.1 State
and its officers. Shri A.M. Ghare, learned Counsel has argued the matter on
behalf of respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No.4038/2001 and Shri P.C.
Madkholkar, learned Counsel has argued the matter on behalf of respondent
no.5 in Writ Petition No.4039/2001.
Judgment wp4038.01
4. Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel submits that the
Ashram School at Kumbhi Tanda was allotted to petitioner on grant-in-aid
basis in 1985, while the Ashram School at Sonda was similarly allotted in
the year 1987. The Schools were functioning satisfactorily, however, on
21.03.1996, the District Social Welfare Officer has issued show cause notice
in relation to both the schools. No action thereafter was taken and show
cause notices were not acted upon. On 07.12.1996, separate show cause
notices were issued by the Director of Social Welfare, calling upon the
petitioner to submit its explanation and warning that if explanation was not
received, further action to cancel recognition or to hand over management,
would be taken. Petitioners submitted its reply to these show cause notices
on 22.12.1996. Thereafter, an order came to be passed on 23.05.1997,
merely observing that explanation tendered by the petitioner was not
satisfactory and, therefore, the Director of Social Welfare proceeded to
appoint an Administrator on both the schools. The District Social Welfare
Officer, Akola came to be appointed as an Administrator for a period of one
year. The Administrator did not take over the charge and then by order
dated 19.08.1998 (in Writ Petition No. 4038/2001) and later by order dated
14.12.1998 (in Writ Petition No. 4039/2001), the Management of schools
respectively at Kumbhi Tanda and Sonda, came to be transferred to
respondent no.5 Institution in respective Writ Petitions.
Judgment wp4038.01
5. Order dated 19.08.1998, transferring Kumbhi Tanda school only
was questioned by present Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3137/1998.
During pendency of that challenge and a Contempt Petition No.52/1999,
which petitioner was required to file on 12.08.1999, the State Government
withdrew the order dated 19.08.1998 as also order dated 14.12.1998. Shri
Nathnange Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha filed Writ Petition No. 3248/1999,
while Gajadhar Rathod Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha filed Writ Petition
No. 340/1999, challenging this order dated 12.08.1999. Division Bench of
this Court considered these two Writ Petitions along with Writ Petition
No.3137/1998 on 11.06.2001, and passed separate orders. Writ Petition
No. 3248/1999 was allowed after finding that no opportunity of hearing was
given to that petitioner - Nathnange Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha, who was
placed in management of Sonda Ashram School. The order dated
12.08.1999, was therefore, set aside and matter was remanded back to the
State Government for reconsidering the same. In the backdrop of these
reasons, Writ Petition No. 340/1999, pertaining to Kumbhi Tanda Ashram
School was also allowed and disposed of on same lines. As the matters were
to be reheard by the State Government, Writ Petition No.3137/1998 filed by
this Petitioner was disposed of by in view of its statement that challenge in
the petition did not survive.
Judgment wp4038.01
6. After this adjudication, petitioner submitted a representation on
03.07.2001 pointing out that orders transferring management of its Schools
to respective respondent no. 5 were passed behind its back, without any
knowledge to it and in absence of any statutory provisions to support it.
The representation was repeated on 01.10.2001, where plea of absence of
powers in respondents to order such transfer was specifically taken and it
was also brought on record that no notice under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Educational Institution (Transfer of Management) Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as "the 1971 Act" for short), was issued at any point
of time to the petitioner.
7. Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel submits that in the wake of
these representations, even after High Court orders dated 11.06.2001
mentioned supra, no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and
on 06.10.2001 the impugned orders maintaining earlier transfers of
management i.e. orders dated 19.08.1998 and 14.12.1998 are passed. He
submits that this order therefore, suffers from vice of violation of principles
of natural justice, as it does not specifically consider the say of the
petitioners, and does not record any finding on it. He states that the
application of mind therein is not "case- specific", no reasons as to why the
Judgment wp4038.01
new management is permitted or then why the 1971 Act is applicable to
the Ashram Schools are recorded..
8. Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel therefore, submits that
Schools legally allotted to petitioners have been transferred to different
managements high highhandedly, and therefore, the same may be restored
back to the petitioner.
9.
Ms. Rane and Shri Ekre, learned respective A.G.Ps, oppose the
petition. They state that initial order dated 23.05.1997 is under Section 3 of
the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act, 1976
(hereinafter referred to as "the 1976 Act" for short), and the said provision
enables the respondents to take over institution i.e. also to take over
management and thereafter hand it over to any other management. The
order dated 23.05.1997 considers these provision and is also after grant of
opportunity to petitioner. The conclusion, that the explanation furnished by
the petitioner was not satisfactory, is also recorded. This appointment of
Administrator was never questioned by the petitioner. As the situation was
helpless and Administrator could not take over charge, the State
Government, vide later two orders transferred management to respective
respondent no.5. Order dated 19.08.1998, was only questioned before this
Judgment wp4038.01
Court in Writ Petition No. 3137/1998, while order dated 14.12.1998
relating to transfer of Sonda School was never assailed. Our attention is
also drawn to the fact that under Section 3[4] of the 1976 Act, a remedy of
filing appeal was available, but, the petitioner did not file any such appeal.
It is submitted that when the Administrator was appointed initially,
provisions of 1971 Act were not used and order appointing Administrator
was never questioned by the petitioner, as such the argument of violation of
principles of natural justice is erroneous and misconceived.
10. The impugned order dated 06.10.2001 is read out to demonstrate
that it contains necessary application of mind.
11. Shri Ghare, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.5 in Writ
Petition No. 4038/2001 has invited our attention to written submissions
filed by the said respondent. He states that respondent no.4 found
condition of School at Sonda so bad that he was unable to take over charge
as an Administrator. As such, he submitted his report and then a order of
transfer of Management of Sonda School to respondent no.5 came to be
passed on 14.12.1998. That order has attained finality as it was never
questioned by the petitioners before any Court or Authority. He invites our
attention to a communication dated 28.01.1997, send by the petitioner to
Judgment wp4038.01
one of the teachers in Ashram School at Sonda. It contains a statement that
the petitioner - Management had already decided to close down that school.
Learned advocate has invited our attention to first show cause notice dated
21.03.1996 and later one dated 07.12.1996. Warning to the Petitioner of
handing over administration of both the Ashram Schools, in case
explanations thereto were not found not satisfactory by the department was
already given and within knowledge of petitioner. Petitioner submitted
identical reply on 26.12.1996, but, in that reply, did not meet the facts on
deficiencies or lacunae noticed and reply contained general comments.
Allotment or handing over of management of Sonda School to respondent
no.5 in Writ Petition No. 4038/2001 is being questioned only after the
matter came to be remanded by this Court on 11.06.2001. He relies upon
the order dated 14.12.1998 to urge that the school allotted to the petitioner
at Sonda has been shifted to other place by the respondent no.5. He
contends that as transfer of management to respondent no.5 and School at
Sonda did not form part of challenge in Writ Petition No.3137/1998, order
dated 12.08.1999 canceling that allotment to respondent no.5 is without
jurisdiction. He further argues that in this situation, orders of this Court
dated 11.06.2001, cannot reopen the controversy which had attained
finality.
Judgment wp4038.01
12. Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.5
in Writ Petition No.4039/2001, adopts the arguments of learned A.G.Ps. as
also of Advocate Ghare. He submits that show cause notice served upon the
petitioner on 07.12.1996, contains the instances which show improper and
unsatisfactory working as also mismanagement. Show cause notice
expressly called upon the petitioner to explain why approval or recognition
should not be canceled or then, the management should not be transferred.
He has invited our attention to reply filed by the petitioner thereto on
26.12.1996 to urge that the petitioner has accepted those lacunae or
instances or improper management. According to him, the reply itself shows
inability of the petitioner to manage the Ashram School, and in this
background first order dated 26.05.1997, appointing Administrator for a
period of one year is fully justified. The petitioner did not challenge
appointment of Administrator and hence, has acquiesced in it. Even in Writ
Petition No.3137/1998, the petitioner did not make any grievance about
appointment of Administrator and ultimately the said petition was
withdrawn on 11.06.2001. Therefore, according to him the impugned order
which upholds transfer of management is, liable to be maintained. He
reiterates that after transfer of management, the question of validity of
appointment of Administrator is no longer open. Our attention is drawn to a
representation dated 23.09.1997 submitted by the petitioner to the State
Judgment wp4038.01
Government, in which the petitioner is shown as appellant and the Director
of Social Welfare has been shown as respondent. Shri Madkholkar, learned
counsel submits that this representation or appeal contained a prayer to
cancel the order dated 23.05.1997, by which the Administrator was
appointed. However, thereafter said challenge was never pressed.
13. In the background, he has invited our attention to Section 8 of the
1976 Act, to urge that the inability of Administrator to assume charge or
then of management to function is taken care of, and in that eventuality,
management can be handed over to other management as mentioned
therein. He has invited our attention to the fact that respondent no.5 has
continued with the management of schools for a period over 17 years, and in
this situation, at this juncture the management of said schools or teaching
therein cannot be disturbed. He contends that there are no complaints
whatsoever against the respondent no.5 and taking over all view of the
matter, the Government may have exercised its special privilege and power
to hand over the schools of petitioners to respective respondent no.5.
14. Without prejudice he submits that the petitioner have not
produced before this Court any material to demonstrate that today they are
equipped to manage the schools, if schools are handed over to them. In this
Judgment wp4038.01
situation, by way of abundant precaution, Adv. Madkholkar adds that if
remand of matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration is needed,
the position prevailing today cannot be disturbed.
15. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
reported at (2013) 1 SCC 1 (Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd
and others .vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and another)
(paragraph nos. 258, 259 and 262) to urge that mere argument of violation
of principles of natural justice is not sufficient in such cases, and unless and
until the petitioner demonstrates accompanying prejudice, the impugned
action can not be held vitiated. As no such prejudice has been demonstrated
in present matter, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
16. In its reply arguments, learned Senior Counsel Shri Bhangde, has
invited our attention to Section 8 of the 1976 Act. That section applies only
when the Administrator completes his tenure and the school is to be handed
over back to the original management. He points out the peculiar
arrangement made therein and submits that as in present case, no action has
been taken under 1971 Act, in absence of adherence to the procedure
stipulated in said section, the management of petitioner school cannot
continue with respondent no.5. He states that in Writ Petition filed earlier
Judgment wp4038.01
vide Writ Petition No. 3137/1998, though order dated 14.12.1998 was not
in question, orders dated 19.08.1998 and 14.12.1998 were withdrawn by
the State Government itself. Said withdrawal or cancellation was questioned
by respective respondent no.5 by filing Writ Petition Nos. 3248/1999 and
340/1999. Division Bench of this Court after hearing all concerned, by a
reasoned order, directed the State Government to reconsider the issue. As
such according to him, order dated 19.08.1998 or 14.12.1998 do not revive
and an exercise for passing of suitable orders was required to be undertaken
afresh. In view of this development, it was not necessary to have any
adjudication in Writ Petition No. 3137/1997, on merits. He further
contends that inherent lack of powers or jurisdiction in State Government to
order change of management can be pointed out in any judicial proceedings
at any point of time. He relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
reported at (1979) 2 SCC 34 (Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and
others .vrs. B.S. Dixitulu and others) particularly paragraph no.24
therein, to buttress this submissions.
17. He submits that none of the respondents before this Court have
pointed out any disqualification or absence of eligibility in petitioners to
receive back the Ashram Schools. He contends that after appointment of
Administrator on 23.05.1997, earlier show cause notice or proceedings in
Judgment wp4038.01
relation thereto came to an end and stood exhausted. Appointment of
Administrator thereafter would have been and has to be an independent
exercise in adherence to principles of natural justice. If management was to
be transferred or handed over to a third party, petitioners ought to have
been heard and for that necessary opportunity should have been extended to
petitioners. As that has not been done, the orders dated 14.12.1998 and
19.08.1998 in favour of respective respondent no.5 are without jurisdiction
and unsustainable. He adds that no such change of hands is possible in view
of Section 8 of 1976 Act.
18. He further submits that the petitioner had submitted
representations on two occasions after the judgment of Division Bench of
this Court dated 11.06.2001. Necessary factual matrix have been made
available in it. That material needed consideration by the respondent State
Government before passing the impugned order dated 06.10.2001. The
competency of the petitioners to administer the school, availability of
infrastructure or other aspects having bearing upon it, are all facts which
needed evaluation in order dated 06.10.2001, and as that has not been
done, the order is bad in law. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the
petitioner has approached this Court pointing out non-application of mind
and it is not for this Court to record any finding about eligibility or absence
Judgment wp4038.01
thereof qua Petitioner. If respondents wanted to raise any such defence,
they ought to have made relevant material available to this Court.
19. He further contends that the petitioners have all the while been
making attempt to obtain the schools back. They have accordingly made
representation after order dated 23.05.1997, and then approached this
Court in Writ Petition No. 3137/1998. The petitioners also submitted their
representation on 03.07.2001 and 01.10.2001 after remand ordered by this
Court on 11.06.2001. After adverse order dated 06.10.2001, present
petitions have been filed. Fact that petitions have remained pending before
this Court for 17 years, therefore, cannot be used to the detriment of the
present petitioner. He submits that ignoring said period, the issue needs to
be addressed to by considering the situation prevailing on 06.10.2001. He
therefore, prays for handing over back the management of both the schools
to petitioner.
20. We have examined the controversy in the light of these arguments.
The orders passed by the respondents are dated 23.05.1997,
19.08.1998, 14.12.1998, 12.08.1999 and 06.10.2001. The
judgment/orders of this Court dated 11.06.2001 also need
appreciation.
Judgment wp4038.01
21. There were, in past, three writ petitions before this Court i.e.
Writ Petition No. 3137 of 1998 filed by present petitioner, Writ Petition
No. 3248 of 1999 and Writ Petition No. 340 of 1999 filed by respective
Respondent No. 5 in present petitions. Those writ petitions are
disposed of on 11.06.2001. Writ Petition No. 3137 of 1998 was not
pressed because of adjudication in Writ Petition No. 3248 of 1999. The
judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 3248 of 1998 on the very same
day reveals that the order dated 12.08.1999, transferring management
of the petitioner's School at Sonda to the respondent No.5 in that
petition was set aside and the matter was remanded to Respondent No.
1 - State for considering the issue regarding allotment of Ashram
School, Sonda, after hearing the concerned parties. The present
petitioner was Respondent No. 5 in said Writ Petition No. 3248 of
1999. Similarly, identical challenge in relation to Kunbhi Tanda
School was considered on the very same day in Writ Petition No. 340
of 1999 and that writ petition was also disposed of on the same lines.
The present petitioner was Respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 340
of 1999. It is, therefore, obvious that after 11.06.2001, the orders
dated 19.08.1998 or 14.12.1998 do not survive. Directions issued on
Judgment wp4038.01
11.06.2001 by this Court have attained finality and acted upon or
acquiesced in by everybody. The contention of Shri Ghare, learned
counsel, that the order dated 14.12.1998 was not questioned by
present petitioner in its earlier Writ Petition No. 3137 of 1998 is,
therefore, not relevant.
22. Orders dated 19.08. 1998 and dated 14.12.1998 were
recalled by the State Government itself on 12.08.1999 and respective
Respondent No. 5 in present Writ Petitions were constrained to file
above mentioned Writ Petition No. 3248 of 1999 and Writ Petition No.
340 of 1999 against it. That order dated 12.08.1999 was set aside by
this Court and the State Government was supposed to pass fresh
orders after hearing all concerned. It, therefore, follows that the orders
dated 14.12.1998 and 19.08.1998 did not revive. The earlier order
dated 23.05.1997 did appoint an Administrator for a period of one
year on both Schools. In that order, grant of an opportunity to present
petitioner, personal visit on 24.11.1995 and report submitted
thereafter are mentioned. The contents of that report and absence of
coordination between management and staff was noted. This fact also
Judgment wp4038.01
finds mention in order dated 23.05.1997. Thereafter, in said order, it
is concluded that Ashram Schools were not being run by the Petitioner
to further the government objective and as per Government policy as
the management was not proper. Explanation to show cause notice
given by the Petitioner was found not satisfactory, and hence, the
Administrator came to be appointed. Thus, in its opening paragraph,
certain events which are prior to issuance of show cause notice have
been narrated and on that basis, after giving an opportunity to
Petitioner, an Administrator came to be appointed on both Schools.
This order dated 23.05.1997 is admittedly under Section 3 of 1976 Act.
Its life was one year and it was never questioned by the present
petitioner. It never came into force.
23. As the Administrator then could not take over charge of any
School, it is claimed that he submitted a report accordingly and on the
basis of that report, the order transferring the management to
respective Respondent No. 5 were passed on 19.08.1998 and
14.12.1998. Thus, those orders were passed after expiry of order
dated 23.05.1997 after a period in excess of 15 months. The
Judgment wp4038.01
Administrator could not assume the charge after 23.05.1997 and
ultimately the Government found it fit to transfer the management
itself.
24. In the light of judgment delivered by this Court on
11.06.2001, it is apparent that validity of this action needed to be
looked into. As the administrator supposed to manage the affairs of
both the Schools of Petitioner could not enter the management, the
first order appointing the administrator never came into being and
never operated. We therefore find no substance in the contention of
Petitioners that said order dated 23.05.1997 exhausted itself. Inability
of the Petitioner to take over the management for whatever reasons,
can not have the effect of killing the order dated 23.05.1997.
25. After remand on 11.06.2001, the petitioner has submitted
two representations. Those representations are dated 03.07.2001 and
01.10.2001. In the said representations, it has pointed out absence of
an opportunity, absence of legal provisions, absence of power in
respondents to order such transfer of management. The respective
parties have invited our attention to provisions of 1976 Act as also
Judgment wp4038.01
1971 Act.
26. Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate has pointed out that
while defining the School, 1976 Act, vide Section 2 specifically
envisages Ashram Schools and hence 1976 Act is applicable to
Petitioner's Ashram Schools. He has pointed out that 1971 Act which
defines Educational Institutions or institution, does not expressly
include Ashram School within its sweep. Though the respondents have
not expressly contended that this argument is erroneous, they have
attempted to urge that in present situation, the said 1971 Act can be
taken recourse to. Shri M.M. Ekre, learned AGP has pointed out that
during pendency of these petitions, the State Government has brought
into force a law by name " Ashram Shala Sanhita, 2006, (in Marathi)".
However, no provision therein is pressed into service and no arguments
have been advanced before us to show that said Sanhita (Code)
enables the respondents to transfer management from one Society to
other Society. Prayer clause "1-A" has been allowed to be added in
W.P. 4039 pf 2001 on 29.04.204 and thereby a prayer to quash and set
aside the GR dated 18.01.2003 permitting shifting of Kumbhi(Tanda)
Judgment wp4038.01
school to a village Shendona in other Tahsil has been made. None of
the parties have invited our attention to this prayer and no arguments
in that respect have been advanced.
27. It is in this situation that representations submitted by the
petitioner on 01.10.2001 needed appreciation. In the impugned order
passed thereafter on 06.10.2001, there is no application of mind qua
the objections raised by the Petitioner. Said order does not refer to any
legal provision as source of power to usher a new person or society into
management. The respondents have not pointed out as to how they
can divest the petitioner - management of its properties or the School
and entrust it to some third person/ institution/ Trust. Scheme
apparent from Section 3 or Section 8 of 1976 Act also does not find
any evaluation. We, therefore, find the order dated 06.10.2001
unsustainable.
28. However, here, the petitioners have not managed these two
Schools after 1998 till date, except for a brief period when because of
order dated 12.08.1999, the management was restored back. But after
1999, period of more than 16 years have now expired. Ashram School
Judgment wp4038.01
at Kumbhi(Tanda) is apparently being run in some other premises and
at a different place ie at village Shendona. The petitioner has not
shown to this Court that the petitioner is running any other Schools or
Ashram Schools. The petitioner has not shown that it has invested any
amount in purchasing movable or immovable property for these two
Ashram Schools. The petitioner has also not pointed out that the
respective Respondent No. 5 have not shifted the working place of
School to some other area. Respective respondent No. 5 have also not
pointed out any of these facts.
29. This Court has to give paramount importance to the
education in these Schools and see to it that this litigation does not
result any prejudice to the students therein or affect its staff. It is in
this situation, we find it not proper to disturb the management of
respective Respondent No. 5 on Schools with them though we quash
and set aside the impugned order dated 06.10.2001. We direct
Respondent No. 1 to hear the petitioner and respective Respondent No.
5 as also representative of department, afresh. The relevant records
shall also be perused. All facts and developments having bearing on
Judgment wp4038.01
establishment or location of these two Schools shall also be duly
evaluated. Petitioner as also the Respondents will be given due
opportunity to have their say in the matter. Keeping in mind all these
factors, the fresh decision on further course of action available, after
receipt of report of Administrator that he was not in a position to take
over the charge of two Ashram Schools shall be reached at the earliest.
30.
Respondent No. 1 shall proceed to procure relevant records
and material needed to complete this exercise. It shall permit the
parties to peruse it and submit their say in writing on it within
reasonable time. Respondent No. 1 shall then proceed to hear them
and take appropriate decision at the earliest and in any case within
next three months. We direct the parties to appear before Respondent
No. 1 for this purpose on 30.05.2016.
31. Till passing of such fresh orders by Respondent No. 1, the
conduct and management of respective Ashram Schools by Respondent
No. 5 shall not be disturbed. This interim arrangement shall be subject
to outcome of exercise to be completed by the Respondent No. 1.
Judgment wp4038.01
32. Writ Petitions are thus partly allowed and disposed of. Rule
is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd/GS.
