Karnaud Shikshan Prasar Samiti ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6924 Chatt

                                                                                               NAFR

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             Writ Petition (C) No.1473 of 2014

                              Order Reserved on : 15.9.2022
                              Order Passed on :           18.11.2022

    1. Karnaud Shikshan Prasar Samiti through its Secretary, Chhaviram
       Dadsena, S/o Dhansai Dadsena, Gram Karnaud, Post & PS Karnaud,
       Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

    2. Swami Vivekanand Higher Secondary School, Karnaud, through its
       Principal, Satyanarayan Jaltare, S/o Makhan Lal Jaltare, aged about
       48 years, Gram Karnaud, Post & PS Karnaud, Tahsil Champa, District
       Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                    ---- Petitioners
                                               versus

    1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of School
       Education, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post and PS Mandir
       Hasaud, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

    2. Director, Public Instructions, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Directorate,
       Pension Bada, Byron Bazar, Post & PS Civil Lines, Raipur,
       Chhattisgarh

    3. District Education Officer, Janjgir-Champa, Post & PS Janjgir-Champa,
       Chhattisgarh
                                                                                 --- Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioners : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Deputy Government Advocate

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

C.A.V. ORDER

1. Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 5.6.2014

passed by Respondent 1, whereby Respondent 1 rejected the

representation of the Petitioners for regular grant in aid (Annexure

P1).

2. The subject matter in brief is that Petitioner 1 is a registered society

under the provisions of M.P./C.G. Societies Registrikaran

Adhiniyam, 1973 (henceforth 'the Adhiniyam'). Petitioner 1 is

running a Higher Secondary School since 1990 in the name as

Swami Vivekanand Higher Secondary School, Karnaud/Petitioner 2

and the same has been granted recognition to run the school upto

12th class. The State Government with a view to provide assistance

to the non-governmental educational institutions made rules

regulating grants in aid, namely, Revised Grant-in-Aid Rules for

Non-Government Educational Institutions in M.P./C.G., 1979 (for

short 'the Rules'). After having run the school for more than 10

years, Petitioner 1 due to extension in the activities of its school,

submitted an application along with proposal for grant in aid in due

procedure and format. The State Government vide its letter dated

16.3.2005 granted ad hoc maintenance grant of Rs.5 Lakhs in

favour of Petitioner 1/Society. From the year 2008-09 the State

Government stopped the disbursal of maintenance grant to the

Petitioner/Society without giving any reason or show cause notice.

The Petitioner/Society vide letter dated 5.6.2008 requested the

Directorate of Public Instructions for continuous issuance of the

grant in aid. The State Government vide letter dated 5.8.2008

replied that since the Petitioners have been granted Rs.10,92,000

as ad hoc grant, therefore, no payment is possible. The Petitioners

filed a petition, being Writ Petition (S) No.4931 of 2008 before this

Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.4.2011.

Thereafter, the Petitioners filed an appeal, being Writ Appeal

No.231 of 2011 before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division

Bench finally disposed of the writ appeal vide judgment dated

29.10.2012 granting liberty to the Petitioners to file a representation

and in turn a sympathetic consideration by the State. The

representation made by the Petitioners has been dismissed.

Hence, the instant petition.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted

that issuance of grant in aid to the Petitioners is not a policy

decision, but, is a statutory function under the Adhiniyam and the

Rules made in this behalf. Any rejection, refusal or denial to such

statutory grant can be permitted only when the reason for such

rejection, refusal or denial is based on considerations permissible

under the Adhiniyam and the Rules. In the present case, the

relevant rules and provisions have not been considered at all.

Without applying mind, a non-speaking order has been passed in

spite of the direction issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ

Appeal No.231 of 2011. The impugned order passed by

Respondent 1 is violative of Article 21A of the Constitution of India

which makes elementary education a fundamental right. The

impugned order directly violates the fundamental rights of the

students being taught in the school of the Petitioners. It was further

submitted that no show cause notice or appropriate opportunity of

hearing has been afforded to the Petitioners before issuance of

grant in aid which was once issued to the Petitioners. Therefore, it

is prayed that the State Government be directed to consider the

case of the Petitioners and sanction regular maintenance grant

under the relevant rules.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/State opposed

the arguments raised on behalf of the Petitioners and submitted

that the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.4931 of

2008 has already been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in

Writ Appeal No.231 of 2011 vide judgment dated 29.10.2012. In

paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment, the Division Bench observed

thus:

"4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition along with the documents and have also filed their reply in the writ appeal showing therein that the Appellant was granted ad-hoc maintenance grant and not the permanent maintenance grant. There is nothing to belie the return filed by the respondents. In view of the same, it cannot be held that the Appellant was granted permanent grant.

5. The Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there is no right to receive maintenance grant. Nothing has been pointed out that the conclusion of the Single Judge is incorrect. In view of the same, no direction to give maintenance grant can be issued."

Therefore, entertaining the issue again by this Single Bench would

be against judicial discipline and propriety. Reliance was placed by

Learned Counsel for the Respondents/State on 2016 SCC OnLine

Del 4285 (M/s RSPL Limited v. Mukesh Sharma). Learned

Counsel also relied on AIR 1962 Gujarat 128 (State of Gujarat v.

Gordhandas Keshavji Gandhi). It was further submitted by the

Learned Counsel that grant in aid is not claimed as of right. It is a

discretion of the State Government. Referring to the judgment of

the Supreme Court in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 807 (State of Uttar

Pradesh v. Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College), it was submitted

by Learned Counsel that since other seven schools are being run

by the government in the same area where the school of the

Petitioners is running, the government is not bound to grant aid to

the Petitioners. Further referring to Rule 28 of the Rules, it was

submitted by Learned Counsel that grant in aid is sanctioned on

yearly basis and that is enforceable for two financial years only. As

the Petitioners have not applied for maintenance grant in the

subsequent year of 2014, it was submitted by Learned Counsel that

the instant writ petition may be disposed of by directing the

Petitioners to move a fresh application for maintenance grant which

should be decided by the Respondents/authorities in accordance

with the relevant rules.

5. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the impugned order and the other material available with

due care.

6. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.231

of 2011, it is not in dispute that the Petitioners were granted ad hoc

maintenance grant and not the permanent maintenance grant. It is

also not in dispute that the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.4931 of 2008 has also been

affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ

appeal. In the said writ appeal, liberty was granted to the

Petitioners to file a representation for grant of maintenance grant

before Respondent 1 and it was further observed by the Division

Bench that in case such a representation is filed that may be

decided by Respondent 1 sympathetically by a speaking order.

From perusal of the order dated 28.2.2013 (Annexure P15), it

appears that the representation submitted by the Petitioners has

been rejected on the ground that the government has not granted

any permanent maintenance grant to the Petitioners. Providing the

maintenance grant to the Petitioners is a policy matter of the State

which can be decided by the State on the basis of availability of

financial resources. It is further observed in the order that from the

year 2000, none of the new educational institutions has been

granted permanent maintenance grant. Therefore, it is not possible

for the government to sanction permanent maintenance grant to the

Petitioners. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the argument

raised by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that non-speaking

order has been passed by the Respondents/authorities.

7. As submitted by the Learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondents/State, which is also admitted by Learned Counsel for

the Petitioners that after the year 2014, the Petitioners have not

applied for any ad hoc maintenance grant before the Respondents/

State, as contained in Rule 28(b)(c) of the Rules. The said rule

provides that the maintenance grant shall be made available on

yearly basis and that shall be enforceable for two financial years

only. As the Petitioners have not made any application for

maintenance grant after the year 2014-15, therefore, the instant writ

petition is disposed of by directing the Petitioners to make a fresh

representation before Respondent 1 through its Secretary,

Department of School Education for sanction of maintenance grant,

which shall be decided by Respondent 1 by a speaking order and

sympathetically as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in

Writ Appeal No.231 of 2011 at an early date preferably within a

period of two months from the receipt of the representation of the

Petitioners.

8. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE Gopal