Delhi High Court
Amir Abidi And Ors vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 6 May, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 6th May, 2015
+ W.P.(C) No.2210/2014 & CM No.20578/2014 (for condonation of
13 days delay in filing addl. affidavit)
AMIR ABIDI AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sarim Naved, Adv.
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Raman Duggal, Adv. for GNCTD
Mr. Raghavendra M. Bajaj & Ms.
Garima Bajaj, Advs. for R-2.
Mr. Ajay Arora, Adv. for NDMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a
Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeks, (i) a direction to the Directorate of
Education (DoE) of the respondent No.1 Government of NCT of Delhi
(GNCTD) to provide an alternative building provisionally for imparting
education to the students of the Shafiq Memorial Higher Secondary School
for a period of 18 months, till a new building is constructed; and, (ii) a
direction to the respondent No.2 Management of Shafiq Memorial Higher
Secondary School to forthwith take efficacious steps to prevent any uncalled
for mishap, inclusive of abandoning those areas of the school which are
imminently and likely to fall.
2. It was the case of the three petitioners:
(i) that Shafiq Memorial School, an aided school situated at Bara
Hindu Rao, Delhi, having about 1200 children from Class I to
Standard XII coming from poor underprivileged sections of the
society, functions under the aegis of Delhi Education Society (Regd.);
(ii) that the building which houses the said School is about 100
years old and a wakf property and in a dilapidated condition,
endangering the security of life and physical safety of the children
studying therein;
(iii) that the Governing Body of the Delhi Education Society
(Regd.) in its meeting held on 4th January, 2014 decided to have the
existing building of the school demolished and to construct a new
building in its place;
(iv) that though the respondent No.2 Management of the said
School had represented to various civic authorities including the DoE
of the respondent No.1 GNCTD requesting them to make an
alternative arrangement for running of the School but no replies were
received.
3. The petition came up before this Court first on 4th April, 2014 when
the DoE of the respondent No.1 GNCTD was directed to come up with a
viable solution. Vide subsequent order dated 17 th April, 2014, an Advocate
Court Commissioner was appointed to take photographs of the building of
the School. The subsequent order dated 23 rd April, 2014 records the
concurrence of the DoE that the School building "requires extensive
repairs". It also records the contention of the respondent No.2 Management
of the School that the existing building is to be pulled down and a new
structure raised in its place. The respondent No.2 GNCTD was accordingly
asked to submit a report.
4. One Sh. Fazlur Rahman applied for impleadment in this petition
claiming to be father of three children studying in the said School and
contending that only repair / renovation work is required in the building and
it was not necessary to pull down the entire building and raise a new
construction. It was further pleaded that the Delhi Education Society
(Regd.) and the Management of the School were in conspiracy with land
grabbers, to oust the students from the school premises so that the land
underneath the school building can be used for commercial gain, either by
converting it into an expensive private school or for some other purposes. It
was further pleaded that taking advantage of the filing of the petition,
students of Class XI and XII studying in the said School had been shifted to
a new block and the students of Classes I to X had been shifted to
Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Qutub Road in the afternoon shift for two years
and which was causing huge inconvenience to the said students and their
parents.
5. The aforesaid made us suspicious of the motive behind filing the
present petition. The Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules
framed thereunder provide an elaborate procedure for closing down of a
School (see Rule 46). It was felt that this so called PIL should not be
allowed to be used to, without the appropriate prescribed procedure being
followed, have the School shut down, as had already been achieved and
thereafter not come back into existence at all, thereby making the valuable
land underneath the School building available for exploitation for
commercial purpose.
6. Accordingly, vide order dated 23rd April, 2014, we directed that a
detailed study be made of the school building to report, whether the same
was in the need only of repairs or was required to be pulled down.
7. An additional affidavit has been filed by the newly impleaded
respondent stating that the respondent No.2 Management of the School in
the guise of the present petition has declared the School to be abandoned
and had the building thereof vacated by 31st March, 2014, without
consulting any experts on the matter to report on the stability and suitability
of the building and whether it required only repairs or needed to be
demolished and contending the said acts to be not bona fide and the present
petition instead of being in public interest being in collusion with the
Society under whose aegis the said School was functioning and with the
Managing Committee of the School.
8. In pursuance to our further directions, an affidavit dated 24th
September, 2014 along with the inspection report prepared by a Structural
Engineer of North Delhi Municipal Corporation has been filed stating that
the building is reparable, some parts of it are dangerous and require repairs
and that the structure of the building is partly structurally safe.
9. We had vide our order dated 9th July, 2014 also directed the
respondent No.2 Management of the said School to file an affidavit with
regard to the steps proposed to be taken by them for demolition and re-
construction of the building to house the same students who had been
displaced therefrom. Though an affidavit in response was filed but not
found to be satisfactory. We vide our order dated 23 rd July, 2014 asked the
respondent No.2 Management of the School to file further affidavit
disclosing the FAR presently exhausted and additional FAR available and
the availability of the funds with the School for raising construction and to
file an undertaking that the land shall not be used for any other purpose as
well as an undertaking that in the event of re-construction being permitted,
the same will be completed within 18 months and the new school building
available to the students in a time bound manner.
10. At that stage, we were told that the Managing Committee of the
School had been dissolved and the faces therein, on whose faith and
credentials this Court had been proceeding and which had led to the School
being shut down, without the procedure therefor being prescribed, were no
longer in management and a new management had come into being; so
much so, that the Advocate earlier representing the School Management was
also changed.
11. Though the School Management has in compliance with our
directions filed affidavits but the same discloses that all the hue and cry
about re-construction was being made, without the School Management
having taken any steps for re-construction or being equipped to have the
building re-constructed. So much so that they are not even possessed of and
have no arrangement for the finances required therefor. Had the building of
the School been demolished in the interregnum, the same would have
definitely resulted in a situation of the new construction being not raised and
the students studying in the erstwhile building being displaced and which in
turn had a high probability of the prime land underneath the school building
being misappropriated / misused.
12. The aforesaid discloses a rather sad state of affairs and the possibility
of the tool of PIL being abused / misused cannot be ruled out. This Court
acted on the credentials of the writ petitioners as educationists and
impressed urgency on the DoE and which in turn, without satisfying itself
whether the school building was only repairable or was required to be
demolished, permitted shifting of students therefrom, making a prime piece
of real estate available for misappropriation. The building could not have
become unsafe in a day; it is inexplicable as to why the Delhi Education
Society (Regd.), the Managing Committee of the School and the DoE which
is granting 95% aid to the School, did not look into the matter earlier.
13. Be that as it may, the position which now emerges is that the building
is not in such a state which is required to be demolished. The Delhi
Education Society (Regd.) which is not even a party to the petition or the
respondent No.2 Management of the School are not even in possession of
the funds for demolition and re-construction of the property. It appears that
if the existing building is permitted to be demolished, the coming up of a
new building at least for school purpose, would be an uncertainty.
14. We therefore dispose of this petition with the following directions:
(I) The respondent No.2 Managing Committee of the School to,
within six months hereof carry out repairs to the portions of the
school building in need thereof, including by re-construction of
portions of the building if required but without demolishing the whole
structure;
(II) The DoE to supervise the said works on a day to day basis;
(III) The North Delhi Municipal Corporation within whose
territorial jurisdiction the School falls, to expeditiously grant
approvals / permissions, if any required for the aforesaid purposes;
(IV) After the said period of six months, the students who have been
shifted out of the said School, be forthwith brought back to the
repaired / renovated school building;
(V) If the DoE finds that the Delhi Education Society (Regd.) and /
or Managing Committee of the School is lagging behind in taking
steps for so restoring the school building and bringing back the
children, it shall be presumed that the Delhi Education Society
(Regd.) and the Managing Committee of the School are not interested
in running the said School and in which case the DoE shall consider
the possibility of taking over the management of the said School;
(VI) The DoE to within fifteen days hereof nominate an officer who
will oversee the entire aforesaid process and who will be responsible
for compliance with the directions of the Court and who can be held
responsible for any violation thereof.
15. The petition is disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MAY 06, 2015
„pp/bs..‟
