JUDGMENT T.S. Doabia, J. 1. Some of the irregularities are curable, some cannot be cured all. It is accordingly submitted that respondent authorities should not have acceded to withdraw affiliation. This is the challenge in all the petitions dratted in the schedule appended to this order. These orders have passed by Deputy Director of Education, Morena. These orders have been passed on different dates but basic reasons which led to the order being passed by the Deputy Director of Education are: (i) That, the accommodation in the school building where the school is located is not sufficient for accommodating the number of students who are undergoing their studies in the school in question; (ii) That, the petitioner management were directed to furnish certified copy of the list of office bearers of the societies running the institution. This was not done on the date on which, they were so asked to produce these copies: (iii) That, the requirement of having a joint fixed deposit receipt in the name of the Deputy Director of Education and the Secretary of the society was not available. In some cases, the requirement is to have a fixed deposit account in the sum of Rs. 3000/- and in other cases, it is Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 7000/-. This depends upon the fact as to whether school is a primary school or a middle school or a higher secondary school; (iv) That, the percentage of number of the students which were found to be attending the classes was 70%; (v) That, no toilet facility is available for the staff and the students; (vi) That some of the basic necessities like black boards, mats, school bells etc. etc. were not found in the schools. In all these petitions the stand taken by the institution is that they would make available the certified copy of the list of office bearers and they would also furnish a fixed deposit receipt as demanded by the respondent authorities. In some cases this has already been done. In other cases if not done would be done within a period of 30 days. The petitioner institutions also states that they would provide basic necessity of toilet etc. in the school premises. 2. If above be the situation, then irregularities serialised at serial No. (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) would no longer be there. 3. The question of attendance may now be looked into. The petitioner institutions also states that they would provide basic necessity of toilet etc. in the school premises. 2. If above be the situation, then irregularities serialised at serial No. (ii) (iii) (v) (vi) would no longer be there. 3. The question of attendance may now be looked into. It is not a case of the department that some students whose names arc indicated in the rolls do not exist. In any case, if a particular student does not attend the school then the institution cannot be held liable. It does not possess any "police power" to force attendance. Therefore, it something is not within the domain of the institution then that cannot be made a ground for withdrawing the affiliation which has already been granted. It is not the case that the register maintained by schools indicating the number of students if factious. It may also be seen that the grant in aid is not dependent on number of students who are undergoing studies but is made available on the basis of the teachers who arc imparting education. As such, by maintaining a register indicating large number of students the institution does not gain any extra advantage. 4. I am of the opinion that merely because, attendance is only up to 70% this cannot be made a ground for withdrawing the affiliation. This is a matter on which institution have no control and therefore, no fault can be attributed to them.. 5. As indicated above management of the schools cannot he penalized if the attendance is less. There is no law which can be resorted to by the management to compel the parents to send their children to school. No coercive means are available to force the parents to send their children to schools. This condition therefore, cannot be insisted upon and cannot be made a ground for passing an order of withdrawal of affiliation. 6. The question regarding the non availability of accommodation in the building is of some importance. The management is charging fees from the students. So far as the salaries which are being paid to the teachers is concerned this is borne by the State Government. This is because State is giving 100% and Therefore, there is a duty cast on the management to provide basic facilities. The management is charging fees from the students. So far as the salaries which are being paid to the teachers is concerned this is borne by the State Government. This is because State is giving 100% and Therefore, there is a duty cast on the management to provide basic facilities. In this regard, the State is right in laying down a condition that the rooms where the teaching is to be imparted should be in accordance with the guidelines laid down by it. Faced with this situation, the counsel appearing for the petitioners institutions have staled that even this requirement regarding the proper building accommodation would be met with within a reasonable period. In any case, they have assured that the needful would be done before the commencement of next academic year. This undertaking given should be sufficient to satisfy the state authorities. 7. If above be the situation, then basically there survives no dispute between the State Government and the petitioners. The basis on which the orders of disaffiliation have been passed would no longer survive. 8. The learned counsel for the State however, submits that the petitioners should avail alternate remedy which is available to them. According to him appeal is competent. 9. I am of the opinion that this is not such a matter which is required to be looked into by appellate authority. The matter has been dealt with in detail in this order. As such, it would not be apt to relegate the petitioners to avail alternate remedy. The petitioners have staled that they have already complied with the conditions as detailed in para No. 1 above. They have also stated that they would make available accommodation to be used as toilet. They have also stated that rooms would be of same the dimensions which stale authorities are insisting upon. Therefore, practically no ground would survive. 10. The other basis materials which are required to be there in the school would also be made available by the schools in question. 11. The petitioners have made reference to a circular issued on 4th of May, 1984. It has been indicated therein that if there is any deficiency of service in the matter of running the school then, management would first be given a chance to make up the deficiency. Such an opportunity according to the petitioner was not given to them. 12. The petitioners have made reference to a circular issued on 4th of May, 1984. It has been indicated therein that if there is any deficiency of service in the matter of running the school then, management would first be given a chance to make up the deficiency. Such an opportunity according to the petitioner was not given to them. 12. These petitions are disposed of with the directions that: (i) Respondents would not insist upon the requirement of attendance on the part of the students; (ii) So far as requirements regarding furnishing a list of office bearers of the institution and making available fixed deposit receipt are concerned if not complied with, be now complied with within a period of 30 days; (iii) So far as building accommodation is concerned the management would provide the same as per the rules by the end of this academic Session; In case, this is not done, respondent authorities would be within their right; (a) to make fresh survey; (b) they would serve a notice on the management indicating reasons for which action is proposed to be taken; (iv) Toilet facilities be provided; (v) Basic facilities like mats, black board etc, would also be provided: (vi) In case, there is failure to comply with the directions given by the respondent authorities, they would be at liberty to pass a fresh order: This order should not be stereotype; (vii) If any adverse order is passed that be not given effect to for a period of ft weeks. This is because, study of the students cannot be put to jeopardy. Any order of disaffiliation by which students arc deprived of the educational facilities can lead to other social problems also. (viii) The order of disaffiliation passed in this case would not be given effect to. (ix) In future if any order of disaffiliation is passed in this ease, then that would not be given effect to for a period of two months. Disposed of accordingly.