Chand Ram & Anr vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5007 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 29th October 2010.

+                                  W.P.(C) 7299/2010

         CHAND RAM & ANR                                       ..... Petitioners
                     Through:             Mr. Baljit Singh & Mr. Ajai Kumar,
                                          Advocates.

                                      Versus

    GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.              ..... Respondents
                 Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh with Ms. Rashi
                           Bansal, Advocates.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                     No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner no.1 claiming to be the promoter of the petitioner no.2

Indira Public School at Village & Post Office-Nangali Sakrawati, Najafgarh,

New Delhi had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.921-22/2006 in this Court seeking a

direction to the respondent no.1 Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the respondent

no.2 Directorate of Education, Delhi to withdraw recognition granted to the

respondent no.3 Bholi Ram Public School in the same locality alleging that

the recognition to the respondent no.3 Bholi Ram Public School had been

granted in violation of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973. That

W.P.(C) 7299/2010

writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 7 th December, 2009 with the

direction to the petitioner to first make a representation to the Directorate of

Education in this regard and with a direction to the Directorate of Education

to after granting personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent

no.3 Bholi Ram Public School pass a reasoned order.

2. In pursuance to the aforesaid directions, the respondent no.2

Directorate of Education has passed an order dated 13 th July, 2010 rejecting

the representation of the petitioner no.1 for de-recognition of respondent

no.3 Bholi Ram Public School and which order is impugned in this petition.

3. The petitioners aver the recognition granted to respondent no.3 Bholi

Ram Public School to be in violation of Rule 50(ii) & (xi) of the Delhi

School Education Rules, 1973 which are as under:-

"50. Conditions for recognition - No private school shall be recognized or continue to be recognized, by the appropriate authority unless the school fulfills the following conditions, namely:-

(ii) Subject to the provisions of clause (1) of article 30 of the Constitution of India, the school serves a real need of the locality and is not likely to effect adversely the enrolment in a nearby school which has already been recognized by the appropriate authority;

(xi) There is no thoroughfare or public passage through any part of the school premises;"

4. The Directorate of Education in the order dated 13 th July, 2010 has

held that respondent no.3 Bholi Ram Public School had in its reply to the

representation denied that there was any thoroughfare or public passage

W.P.(C) 7299/2010

through any part of the school premises. It is further recorded that enquiries

from the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Tehsildar reported that there was no

thoroughfare or public passage in any part of the respondent no.3 Bholi Ram

Public School.

5. The counsel for the petitioners has filed before this Court a layout

plan of the Indira Park Colony where both the Schools are stated to be

situated. It is stated that the Schools are not situated over agricultural land

or in a village area but in a Colony and enquiries should have been made

from the MCD not from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Tehsildar. With

respect to the layout plan it is stated that the respondent no.3 Bholi Ram

Public School is constructed over several plots on two sides of a public lane.

On that ground, violation of Rule 50 (xi) supra is alleged.

6. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not ordinarily

interfere with the decisions taken by the officials statutorily made

responsible for taking the said decisions and to decide whether a particular

school is to be recognized or not, unless prima facie a case of malafide or

total arbitrariness on the face of record is made out.

7. The respondent no.2 Directorate of Education in the order dated 13th

July, 2010 has noted that the respondent no.3 Bholi Ram Public School has

been set up by the relatives of the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.1 is

using the office of the Directorate of Education because of his personal

rivalry and to settle his own disputes with his relatives. Even though no case

W.P.(C) 7299/2010

in the writ petition for interference with the order of the respondent no.2

Directorate of Education has been made out but I have still perused the

layout plan aforesaid. Even if the averments of the petitioners are to be

believed, the respondent no.3 Bholi Ram Public School having been

established on all the plots on both sides of a lane which from the layout

plan appears to be intended to serve only the occupants of the plots on both

sides thereof, it cannot be said that the said lane is a thoroughfare or a public

passage through the school premises. Thus, believing the case of the

petitioner also, I am unable to find a case for interference in writ jurisdiction

to have been made out.

8. The only other challenge to recognition is that the recognition to the

respondent no.3 Bholi Ram Public School was granted after about one and a

half years of recognition of the petitioners' School. It is contended that the

recognition having been granted to the petitioners' School, there was no real

need for another recognized school in the same locality and the grant of

recognition to the respondent no.3 Bholi Ram Public School has adversely

affected the enrolment of students in the petitioners' School situated near the

respondent no.3 Bholi Ram Public School.

9. The respondent no.2 Directorate of Education has in the order dated

13th July, 2010 impugned in this writ petition stated that even before the

grant of recognition to the respondent no.3 Bholi Ram Public School, the

strength of the petitioners' School was less and never to the sanctioned

W.P.(C) 7299/2010

capacity. From the said record, it has been inferred that the petitioners'

School has not been doing well since beginning and thus the strength of the

students in the petitioners' School is meager due to the petitioners' School's

own performance/policies rather than owing to grant of recognition to

another School. It has further been held that the petitioners instead of

adopting a positive approach and raising standard of their own School, are

blaming the neighbouring School. It has further been contended that

withdrawal of recognition to the respondent no.3 Bholi Ram Public School

would not guarantee the healthy growth of the petitioners' School.

10. The petitioner in the writ petition has not given any particulars of the

total number of houses in the locality, the number of residents, the number

of school going children and other such facts from which it can be gathered

whether there was any error in the order of respondent no.2 Directorate of

Education in reaching a conclusion that there was or not a need for another

School in the locality. In the absence of any such particulars, no challenge

again to the decision of the respondent no.2 Directorate of Education to

grant recognition can be made. The respondent no.2 Directorate of

Education is right in stating that the petitioners for their own lack of

business cannot blame another School.

11. The Directorate of Education has also held that owing to the Right to

Education Act, establishment of more and more Schools of which there is

scarcity, has to be encouraged.

W.P.(C) 7299/2010

12. The counsel for the petitioners during the hearing has stated that the

respondent no.3 Bholi Ram Public School is luring parents and students by

offering children free transport. From the same it appears that the said

School is catering not only the nearby students but also to the residents of

far away requiring transport; for this reason also it cannot be said that there

is any error in the decision of the respondent no.2 Directorate of Education

in granting recognition.

13. Even otherwise I find that the petitioner cannot throttle competition in

a manner aforesaid. Schools play a vital role in formulating the growth of

future citizens of the city and the country and even if one is affected by the

other, I see no reason why the principle of survival of the fittest should not

prevail.

14. There is no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed in limine.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 29th October, 2010 bs..

W.P.(C) 7299/2010