Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1107 (ALL)

Madarsa Zamia Nurul Ulum v. State of U. P.

2014-04-04

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23rd March, 2010 passed by the respondent no. 1 whereby the claim of the petitioners' Institution for grant-in-aid has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner no. 1 is a Committee of Management of a Madarsa, namely, Madarsa Zamia Nurul Ulum Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh (for short, the "Institution") through its Manager and the petitioner no. 2 is Principal of the Institution. Said Madarsa is recognised by the Registrar, Arbi-Farsi Madarsa Board. Initially, the Institution was recognised upto the level of Aliya (Munshi and Maulvi), which is equivalent to High School. Later on, in the year 2009 the Institution was upgraded upto the level of Alim Kamil, which is equivalent to Intermediate. 3. The State Government has taken a policy decision to bring such Madarsas on the grant-in-aid list who satisfy certain norms. In this regard the State Government issued an order dated 20th December, 2006, whereunder the norms have been laid down. One of the requirements mentioned in said Government Order to bring the Madarsas (Institutions) on the grant-in-aid list is that there should not be less than 100 students studying upto the level of Aliya and at each stage there should not be less than 15 students. Said Government Order was followed by another order dated 10th October, 2008, wherein more or less same norms have been reiterated. 4. It is stated that in pursuance of the aforesaid Government orders, the petitioners made an application to bring the Institution in the grant-in-aid list, pursuant to which the District Minority Welfare Officer, Azamgarh made an inspection of the Institution and recommended the matter to the Registrar, Arbi-Farsi Madarsa Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow to bring the Institution on the grant-in-aid list. In the said report it is mentioned that the Institution fulfils the norms laid down in the aforesaid Government Orders. It is averred in the writ petition that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Azamgarh has also made inspection of the Institution on behalf of the District Magistrate and submitted his report. Said report is on the record as annexures-9 & 10 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate has forwarded the said report to the State Government. It is averred in the writ petition that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Azamgarh has also made inspection of the Institution on behalf of the District Magistrate and submitted his report. Said report is on the record as annexures-9 & 10 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate has forwarded the said report to the State Government. The State Government by the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2010 has rejected the claim of the petitioners' Institution on the ground that the Institution does not satisfy the norms laid down in the Government Orders. It is mentioned in the impugned order that in the year 2008 in the Institution there were only 17 students in Maulvi and 9 students in Munshi in Arbi Farsi Examinations, who appeared in the examination. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein the reasons mentioned in the impugned order have been reiterated. 6. I have heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and learned Standing Counsel. 7. Sri J.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondent no. 1 has wrongly interpreted the report submitted by the District Magistrate. As per the said report, total number of students enrolled in the Institution was 46, out of which 38 students had appeared in the examination. He submits that in the Government Orders dated 20th December, 2006 and 10th December, 2008 the word "v/;;ujr" has been mentioned and not the students who appeared in the examination. Therefore, the entire premise, on the basis of which impugned order has been passed, is based on misinterpretation of the Government Orders. Sri Singh has lastly urged that the respondent no. 1 has discriminated the Institution as there are large number of Madarsas, a list of which has been annexed as annexure-19 to the writ petition and names of some of the Madarsas (Institutions) have been mentioned in paragraph-50 of the writ petition, who do not satisfy the norms laid down in the Government Orders, but the respondent no. 1 has brought those Madarsas (Institutions) on the grant-in-aid list. Thus, the impugned order passed by the State Government is discriminatory and arbitrary. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit, wherein the reasons given in the impugned order have been reiterated. 1 has brought those Madarsas (Institutions) on the grant-in-aid list. Thus, the impugned order passed by the State Government is discriminatory and arbitrary. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit, wherein the reasons given in the impugned order have been reiterated. 9. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The District Magistrate has got the Institution physically inspected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the District Minority Welfare Officer had also separately made inspection of the Institution. The State Government has relied upon the report submitted by the District Magistrate. The chart of said report has been brought on record as annexure-10 to the writ petition, wherein the District Magistrate has mentioned the figures of the year 2008, on which the State Government has placed reliance. For the sake of convenience, the relevant chart is extracted hereunder: 9 10 ijh{kk dk fooj.k eqa'kh ,oa ekSyoh o"kZ 2008 dk ijh{kkQy 2008 vjch Qkjlh ijh{kk,a m0iz0 esa iathd`r Nk= la[;k vjch Qkjlh ijh{kk,a m0iz0 esa lfEefyr Nk= la[;k vjch Qkjlh ijh{kk,a m0iz0 esa mRrh.kZ Nk= la[;k mRrh.kZ Nk= dk lfEefyr ds lkis{k izfr'kr eqa'kh 29 29 15 53% ekSyoh 17 9 8 89% ;ksx 46 38 23 61% 11. In the impugned order the State Government has taken the view that only those students who have appeared in the examination, should be taken into consideration in terms of the Government orders. Admittedly, in Munshi and Maulvi the District Magistrate has shown that 46 students are enrolled in the Institution and out of those 46 students, 38 students appeared in the examination. From a simple reading of the Government Orders dated 20th December, 2006 and 10th October, 2008 it is evident that the word "v/;;ujr" connotes that the number of students who are studying/enrolled in the Institution is the criterion and not the students who have appeared in the examination. Thus, the view taken in the impugned order, on the basis of the students who have appeared in the examination, appears to be erroneous. 12. The petitioners in paragraphs-49 and 50 of the writ petition have given the list of the Madarsas (Institutions), which are alleged to have not complied with the norms of the Government Orders, but those Madarsas have been brought on the grant-in-aid list. 12. The petitioners in paragraphs-49 and 50 of the writ petition have given the list of the Madarsas (Institutions), which are alleged to have not complied with the norms of the Government Orders, but those Madarsas have been brought on the grant-in-aid list. The averments made in paragraphs-49 and 50 of the writ petition have been replied in paragraph-23 of the counter affidavit, wherein said statements of the petitioners have not been denied specifically. It is a trite law that the provisions of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 are not applicable in the writ proceedings, but the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari and another Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and others, (2010)1 SCC 234 , has laid down the law that though the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not made applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution but the general principles thereof will even apply to the writ petitions. Order VIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a fact which has not been specifically denied shall be deemed to be admitted. In the present case, totally evasive and general reply has been given by the respondents to the averments made in paragraphs-49 and 50 of the writ petition. 13. After careful consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2010 passed by the State Government, for the aforestated reasons, is unsustainable and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Government to decide afresh after hearing the petitioners and by passing a reasoned and speaking order as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. 14. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of. 15. No order as to costs. "