The Managing Committee Of New ... vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 133 Tri

                              Page - 1 of 8




                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA

                             WA No.70/2014
The Managing Committee of New Hindi Secondary School, Khejur
Bagan, Goalabasti, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. East Agartala, District
West Tripura, represented by its Secretary, Sri Lalbabu Ray, S/o Late
Ram Nandan Ray, resident of Khejur Bagan, P.S. West Agartala, District
- West Tripura.
                                                   .............. Appellant(s).
                                    Vs.

1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary to the Education
   Department, Govt. of Tripura, Agartala, New Civil Secretariat
   Complex, Khejurbagan, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. East Agartala, District -
   West Tripura.
2. The Director of School Education (Grant-in-Aid Section), Govt. of
   Tripura, near Sishu Bihar H.S. School, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West
   Agartala, District - West Tripura.
                                                .............. Respondent(s).

                            _B_E_ F_O_R_E_
    HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
     HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY
        For Appellant(s)              : Mr. D K Biswas, Advocate,
                                        Mr. G K Nama, Advocate.
        For Respondent(s)             : Mr. D Sharma, Addl. Govt. Adv.
        Date of hearing               : 2nd February, 2021.
        Date of judgment              : 8th February, 2021.
        Whether fit for reporting     : No.
                                  Page - 2 of 8




                              JUDGMENT

(Akil Kureshi, CJ).

This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26th September, 2014 in

WP(C) No.372/2010. This litigation has a chequered history.

[2] Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner is a management

running a Higher Secondary School situated at Agartala. The school has

been granted recognition by the State School Board [Tripura Board of

Secondary Education (TBSE)] . The school imparts education in Hindi

medium and is thus a linguistic minority school. The petitioner desires

that this school be covered under the grant-in-aid code.

[3] At one stage, the Government had issued a notification dated

16th April, 2007 covering the petitioner school in the grant-in-aid code.

However, by a subsequent notification dated 17th December, 2008 the

same was withdrawn from the inception. The petitioner had thereupon

filed WP(C) No.235/2009 and challenged the said notification dated 17 th

December, 2008. This petition was disposed of by the Single Judge by a

judgment dated 5th March, 2010. The impugned notification was quashed

and the State Government was directed to give reasonable opportunity to

the petitioner allowing it to file the documents and granting personal Page - 3 of 8

hearing. The Government had challenged the said decision of the learned

Single Judge before the Division Bench. However, writ appeal was

dismissed by an order dated 4th May, 2010.

[4] Pursuant to the said judgment, the petitioner was allowed to

make a detail representation. After considering such representation which

was made on 22nd March 2010, the Government passed a fresh order dated

30th July, 2010 once again reiterating the Government stand that the grant-

in-aid status of the petitioner school stands cancelled w.e.f 1st April, 2007.

This order was based on several factors, primary factor being that the

school had no land of its own and the school was set up on a land

belonging to one Smt. Preti Devi. The ownership of the land lies with the

said lady and there is no scope for any future expansion of the school. In

the said order, the authority had also referred to certain other

shortcomings in running of the school. This order school management has

challenged by filing fresh petition [WP(C) No.372/2010].

[5] This petition was strongly opposed by the administration.

Grounds of locus standi and res judicata were raised. The learned single

Judge disposed of the writ petition by the impugned judgment and

accepted neither the ground of lack of locus standi nor of res judicata.

However, on merits, it was found that the petitioner had not made out a Page - 4 of 8

case for issuing mandamus for including the school in the grant-in-aid

scheme. The learned Judge referred to the relevant provisions of Grant-in-

aid Rules [Grant-in Aid (Government Aided Schools) Rules, 2005] and

noted that the grant-in-aid would be granted to a school subject to

fulfilment of certain terms and conditions laid down in Rule 3 of the said

Rules. However, the petitioner was granted opportunity to acquire land

upon which the Government would re-consider the question of including

the school in grant-in-aid scheme. Relevant portion of the judgment reads

as under :

" * * *

55. We are constrained to hold that even though the mesh has been created by the respondents, but for absence of any enforceable right of any nature subsisting in favour of the petitioner-school, this court cannot hold that the petitioner-school is entitled to have the grant-in-aid status in the circumstances as stated and, as consequence thereof, the impugned order cannot be interfered, with mandate to the respondents to release the grant as sought for and to implement the mid-day meal scheme etc.

56. As already stated, the conditions of Rule 3 of the Gran-tin- aid Rules have not been conformed to by the petitioner-school. However, the petitioner-school has given an undertaking that they are in a position to acquire the land within a period of six months, if they are so permitted. Having regard to the future of the said school and also to the Constitutional mandate to provide free and compulsory education to the children up to the age of 14 under Article 21A of the Constitution of India, if within 6(six) months, as Page - 5 of 8

undertaken by the petitioner-school, the land required for functioning of the school of Secondary level, is acquired and a fresh application is made with all particulars of land and on conforming to the other conditions as provided under Rule 3 of the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2005, the respondents shall grant them the grant-in-aid status within a period of 1(one) month from the day of compliance as above.

57. Having held so, this writ petition is allowed to the limited extent as indicated above. Before parting, it is made clear that the effect of this order shall only be confined to the petitioner-school in the peculiar fact and circumstances of the case. There shall be no order as to costs."

[6] Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. D K Biswas, submitted

that the school is the only Hindi Medium School in the vicinity catering to

children of families whose mother tongue is Hindi and who otherwise

belong to economically weaker strata of the society. It is extremely

difficult to sustain the school without Government aid. The owner of the

land Smt. Preti Devi has given the land to the management to run the

school. The school is running at the said site since the year 1981 without

any hindrance. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant had also

acquired alternate site on lease where the school building can be

constructed. However, the Government has rejected this site also on

flimsy grounds.

Page - 6 of 8

[7] On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate,

Mr. D Sharma, opposed the appeal contending that the school

management must confirm to all terms and conditions contained in the

said Rules before it can be included in a grant-in-aid code. The appellant

has not established its ownership over the land where presently the school

building is situated. The alternate site suggested by the school also does

not confirm to the legal requirements. The lease is only for a period of 10

years. This cannot be equated with ownership of the land. The school also

does not fulfil several other conditions of the Grant-in-aid Rules.

[8] At the outset, it may be noted that the Government has not

challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge and qua the

respondents-State this judgment has become final. A perusal of the quoted

portion of the impugned judgment would show that the learned Judge not

being convinced about the appellant having fulfilled all the conditions for

being included in the grant-in-aid scheme, nevertheless has given an

opportunity to the appellant to fulfil such conditions. Primarily, the

appellant has to show that the school is situated on a suitable piece of land

of its ownership. In fact, it is recorded in the judgment of the learned

Single Judge that the appellant had shown readiness to rectify this defect.

It was, therefore, provided that if it is so done within 6 months, that the Page - 7 of 8

petitioner would approach the authorities for being included in the grant-

in-aid code and if the petitioner fulfils other conditions as well, the same

would be granted.

[9] We see no scope for interference in the said conclusion of the

learned Single Judge. A recognized school may have a right for being

considered for inclusion in the grant-in-aid code, nevertheless can claim

no vested right to receive the aid without fulfilling the terms and

conditions statutorily provided. However, in the present case, we notice

that the school is running at the land which is stated to be belonged to

Smt. Preti Devi who their informed is a member of erstwhile ruling family

of the State, since the year 1981. At no stage, the owner of the land has

objected to the school running at the said site. We are informed by the

learned counsel for the appellant that the lady has no objection if the

school continues to run there. If the appellant, therefore, can obtain a legal

document with respect to the land in question from the owner giving right

to the management to run the school at the said site for a longer period of

time, the condition that the land must be of the ownership of the school

management may be taken to have been sufficiently satisfied in the

present case. If, therefore, the appellant can produce a gift deed, a lease in

perpetuity or a lease of a period exceeding 30 years or some such similar Page - 8 of 8

document or agreement having force of law from the owner of the land

with respect to the land in question, the requirement that the land must be

of the ownership of the school shall be deemed to have been satisfied. It

would thereafter be open for the appellant to approach the Government

administration and such application would be dealt with as provided by

the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. There is no need for

granting any time limit for approaching the Government since any such

application would be considered by the Government prospectively.

[10] Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if

any, also stands disposed of.

  ( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J )                      ( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )




Sukhendu