Rajasthan High Court
Society Of Catholic Education vs State Of Raj And Ors on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13469/2016
Society of Catholic Education Institutions in Rajathan, Head
Office at Bishop's House, Kesarganj, Ajmer, 305001, Rajasthan
through its Vice President, Rev. Bishop Oswald Lewis son of Mr.
Xavier Lewis. (On behalf of its Members mentioned in Annexure-
1 to this writ petition).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary to the
Government, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary to the Government, Secondary Education
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Secretary, School Education (Group V), Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Bohra on behalf of
Mr. Dinesh Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General
through VC assisted by
Mr. Darsh Pareek
Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
01/11/2022
The petitioner by means of this writ petition has made the
following prayers:-
"a). Issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction, declaring the Rajasthan School
(Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 unconstitutional
and void under Articles 13(2) and 30(1) of
the Constitution; and/or
b). Issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction, declaring the Rajasthan Schools
(Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016, as
(2 of 3) [CW-13469/2016]
unconstitutional for being directly in
contravention of Article 13(2), law laid down
by a larger Constitution Bench of 11 Judges
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TMA Paid
Foundation [2002(8)SCC481] in
contravention of Article 30(1), law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Society for
Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs.
Union of India & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC 1]; and
for being violative of the rights guaranteed
under Articles 19(1) (g) and 26, 29, 30 of the
Constitution of India or,
c). Issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction, declaring the inclusion of minority
educational institutions in the definition of
Section 2(t) of the Rajasthan Schools
(Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016, as
unconstitutional for being directly in
contravention of Articles 29 and 30, law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Society for Unaided Private Schools of
Rajasthan vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2012) 6
SCC 1]; and for being violative of the rights
guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (g) and 26,
29, 30 of the Constitution of India or,
d). Any other appropriate order or directions
which are deemed just and proper by this
Hon'ble Court may also be passed in favour of
the humble petitioner and in the interest of
justice."
Learned Advocate General has pointed out that the
controversy with regard to the validity of the Rajasthan School
(Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 has been considered by the Apex
Court in the case of Indian School, Jodhpur and Anr. Vs. State
of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in (2021) 10 Supreme
Court Cases 517 and the validity has been upheld. The Supreme
Court in paragraph 66 of the aforesaid judgment concludes as
under:-
"66. Taking overall view of the matter,
therefore, we uphold the conclusion of the High
Court in rejecting the challenge to the validity
of the impugned 2016 Act and Rules framed
thereunder. However, we do so by reading
(3 of 3) [CW-13469/2016]
down Sections 4, 7 and 10 of the Act in the
manner indicated in paras 37, 47, 48 and 53
respectively of this judgment. These provisions
as interpreted by given effect to, henceforth, in
conformity with the law declared in this
judgment. For the reasons mentioned hitherto,
we hold that the High Court rightly concluded
that the provisions of the 2016 Act as well as
the 2017 Rules are intra vires the Constitution
of India and not violative of Articles 13 (2) and
19 (1)(g) of the Constitution."
In view of the above decision of the Apex Court, we are of
the opinion that nothing survives to be adjudicated upon any
further in this writ petition and that the controversy is squarely
covered by the above decision.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to seek revival
of the writ petition in case he is of the opinion that the matter still
survives.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ
RAJAT/AHSU/32
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
