Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 664 (RAJ)

Ramku Dev v. State of Rajasthan

2004-04-24

K.K.ACHARYA, N.N.MATHUR

body2004
Judgment 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order of learned Single Judge dated 110.2003 dismissing the writ petition. 2. Admit. Issue notice, Learned Additional Government Advocate waives service of notice. On the request of learned Counsel for the parties special appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. Instant special appeal is directed against the Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 110.2003 dismissing the writ petition. The necessary facts giving rise to the instant special appeal are that Gram Panchayat, Fateh Sagar in its meeting dated 15.05.2000 resolved to open Rajiv Gandhi Swarna Jayanti School at Meghwal/Bejaron-ki-dhani. The Panchayat Samit, Phalodi accepted the resolution alongwith resolutions of other Gram Panchayats in its meeting dated 17.05.2000. The resolution was conveyed by the Development Officer under communication dated 17.05.2000 in which name of Gram Panchayat, appeared at serial No. 9. In the second column, approval has been given for the opening of schools at proposed villages or wards indicted therein. At serial No. 42, the name of village Bejaron-ki-dhani appears for the Gram Panchayat, Fateh Sagar. Additional Collector (Development), Jodhpur by order dated 20.09.2002 sanctioned a sum of Rs. 1,36,000/-, for the construction of building for school at Rawana Meghwalon-ki-dhani. A enquiry report was submitted with respect to actual location of the school by the Education Officer. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi on 210.2002. A complaint was received by the Gram Panchayat with respect to the location of school on 30.11.2002. Thus, a meeting of Education Committee of Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi was convened. Said committee in its meeting dated 20.01.2003 resolved to continue the school at its present place as sanctioned by the State Government. However, by the impugned order dated 09.07.2003, District Education Officer has directed to shift the school to ward No. 9. Said order was challenged by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition summarily on the ground that location of school being an administrative matter, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further observed that officers issuing the impugned order are higher officers than the officers who submitted that report with respect to the location of school. 4. It was further observed that officers issuing the impugned order are higher officers than the officers who submitted that report with respect to the location of school. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel that learned Single Judge has failed to consider that a decision was taken at various levels right from the Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti and ultimately the Collector for opening the school at the present location. It is further submitted that State Government sanctioned the amount and the school has also been constructed. In these circumstances, District Education Officer has no authority to shift the school by the impugned order. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed in the special appeal. It is admitted in the reply that school has been constructed over the land of Khasra No. 905 situated at Bejaron-ki-dhani. It is further submitted that in view of the resolution of Gram Panchayat being approved by the Panchayat Samiti one begha of land was surrendered by Gordhan Ram, Pema Ram, Banshi Ram, Bhana Ram and Gopal Ram from joint khatedari in Khasra No. 905 of Patwar Circle Village Peelwa situated in Gram Panchayat, Fateh Sagar. However, later on Deepa Ram and others surrendered one bigha of land from their khatedari in Khasra No. 943 for opening the school in Ward No. 9. 6. Having given anxious thought to the entire controversy involved, we are of the view that once proposal of the Gram Panchayat has been approved by the Panchayat Samiti and the Collector sanctioned the amount and further the construction has been raised thereon, there was no occasion for the District Education Officer to shift the school from Bejaron-ki-dhani to ward No. 9. It is of course, true that location of a school is an administrative matter but any administrative authority cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily and in fanciful manner. District Education Officer cannot said to be an authority higher than the Collector. In the instant case the location of the school has been considered in a democratic manner by the Education Committee of the Gram Panchayat. It was further considered in the meeting of Panchayat Samiti. Additional Collector (Education) after receiving the report of the concerned education authority, has granted the sanction. The construction has also been raised. District Education Officer has not indicated any reason for the change of location. It was further considered in the meeting of Panchayat Samiti. Additional Collector (Education) after receiving the report of the concerned education authority, has granted the sanction. The construction has also been raised. District Education Officer has not indicated any reason for the change of location. Thus, the impugned order of District Education Officer on face is illegal being arbitrary. The impugned order deserves to be quashed. 7. Consequently, the special appeal is allowed. The order of learned Single Judge dated 110.2003 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The orders of District Education Officer, Jodhpur dated 09.07.2003 and 14.07.2003 (Annexure P/7 and P/8) are quashed and set aside.