Upras Vidyalaya And Ors. vs The Director Of Education
2014 Latest Caselaw 7169 Del

$~
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        W.P.(C) 2556/2013

%                                     Judgment dated 24th December, 2014

         UPRAS VIDYALAYA AND ORS.                 ..... Petitioner.
                      Through : Mr.Mukesh Kher, Mr.Priyank Kher and
                                Mr.Niraj K. Mishra, Advs.

                             versus

         THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION              ..... Respondent
                      Through : Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani and Ms.Bandana
                                Shukla, Advs.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J.

1. This matter was being listed along with the main writ petition, being W.P.(C)6288/2012, in which detailed arguments have been addressed by learned counsel for the parties. Inadvertently a formal notice has not been issued in this matter.

2. Notice. Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. It is not necessary to set out the detailed facts in this case, however, it may be noticed that the petitioners had made a request to the respondent, pursuant to a unanimous decision taken by the Managing Committee of petitioner no.1 in its meeting held on 22.9.2010, to change the name of petitioner no.1 school from Upras Vidyalaya to Upras Public School. A communication was addressed to the Director of Education on 24.11.2010. Postal receipts have been filed along with the said

communication. The respondent called upon the petitioners on 5.1.2012 to file documents, which were filed by petitioners on 11.1.2012. Repeated reminders were sent by petitioner no.3 including reminder dated 21.2.2012 to the respondent. Thereafter petitioner no.2 in its meeting held on 22.12.2012 decided to change the name of petitioner no.1 school from Upras Vidyalaya to Bala Pritam Guruharkishan International Public School. The Parent-Teacher Association also decided to change the name of petitioner no.1 school as suggested by the Management. A letter of request was sent to the respondent on 4.1.2013 along with a copy of the Resolution, affidavit, Scheme of Management of school and list of members of the Board of Management. Thereafter three reminders were sent to the respondent including letter dated 9.1.2013. A letter was also addressed to the Ministry of Education, who in turn requested the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner. Thereafter three reminders were sent by the petitioner to the respondent on 14.1.2013, 17.1.2013 and 23.1.2013. Since no satisfactory response was being received W.P.(C)1293/2013 was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of on 14.3.2013 on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent that a decision would be taken in the matter expeditiously. The Court directed the respondent to take a decision within four weeks and convey the same to the petitioner. Respondent took a final decision in the matter and informed the petitioner on 16.4.2013. This communication is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition and, thus, it is deemed appropriate to reproduce the same. Letter dated 16.4.2013 reads as under:

               "No.F/DE.15/1043/Act-I/2013/8239                         Dated
               16.4.2013
               To,



                       The Principal,
                      UPRAS Vidyalaya,
                      Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar,
                      New Delhi-110 057

Sub: Regarding change of name UPRAS Vidyalaya, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

Sir,

With reference to your applications regarding change of name of UPRAS Vidyalaya, in this regard I am directed to inform you that the request for change of name of UPRAS Vidyalaya can only be considered after the final adjudication of the matter regarding legal and legitimate management of UPRAS Vidyalaya by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the WPC No.6288 and WPC No.4308.

This issues with the prior approval of the Competent Authority,

Yours faithfully,

(P.LATA TARA) ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF EDN. (ACT-I)"

4. The contents of the letter dated 16.4.2013, extracted above, would show that the stand of the respondent is that the request of the petitioners for change of name can only be considered after final adjudication of the matter regarding legal and legitimate management of Upras Vidyalaya by Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.6288/2012 and W.P.(C) No.4308/2012. Undoubtedly both the writ petitions are pending. The prayer made in W.P.(C)4308/2012 reads as under:

a) set aside the order dated 12.7.2012 passed by the respondent no.1 and letter dated 13.7.2012 issued by the respondent no.2

5. The prayer made in W.P.(C)6288/2012 reads as under:

a) set aside the order dated 26.9.2012 passed by the respondent no.1 and 2.

6. It may also be noticed that by a letter dated 12.7.2012 the respondent had ordered that bank accounts would not be operated by anyone without prior permission of Deputy Director and the second communication was to the same effect, which is subject matter of W.P.(C)4308/2012.

7. The order dated 26.9.2012 is an order by which the Director of Education had decided to take over the management of the school, which is subject matter of W.P.(C)6288/2012.

8. In my view neither W.P.(C) No.6288/2012 nor W.P.(C)No.4308/2012 are with regard to the legitimacy of the management of Upras Vidyalaya. Thus, the order passed by the respondent shows complete non-application of mind and the same is arbitrary and whimsical.

9. It may be noticed that the dispute with regard to the management of petitioner no.1 school is the subject matter of a civil suit, which is pending on the original side of this Court. While hearing the main writ petition the file of the said matter was called to the Court. It was noticed that the plaintiff in the said suit has not even bothered to press the interim application and in fact the suit is listed before the Joint Registrar since 10.9.2012 and barring the pendency of the civil suit in which no interim order has been pressed there is nothing to show that any other group is seriously staking their claim on the management. Moreover in case the respondent wanted to seek objections of such person, who claim themselves to be as part of the management, respondent could have well within its right called upon such persons and decided the objections.

10. It may also be noticed that during the pendency of the matter, learned counsel for the respondent was repeatedly asked as to who is running the school, who is signing the cheques, operating the bank accounts and paying salaries to the teachers and staff, as per their record.

11. It could not be disputed that the petitioners herein were carrying on the day-to-day functions of the school and according to the petitioners they are duly elected members as per the elections held.

12. In view of above the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.4.2013 is set aside with a directions that the Director of Education will consider the request of the petitioner for change of name in accordance with law within six weeks from today by passing a speaking order.

13. Writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.

G.S.SISTANI, J th DECEMBER 24 , 2014 msr