Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 100 (MAN)

N. G. Ningshok v. State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary

2016-07-15

KH.NOBIN SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. H. Bisheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri K. Jagat, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for issuing a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to construct school building, playground, kitchen for mid-day meal cooking, toilets and also to provide library books, magazines and newspapers to the Ringui Ayotang Primary School, Ukhrul (hereinafter referred to as “the School”. 3. The facts which have led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner No. 1 is the Secretary of the Ringui Village Authority, Ringui Village, Ukhrul District, Manipur and the petitioner No. 2 is the father of Ms. Zaring who is a student of Class-I at the said School which was established in the year 1982 under the Autonomous District Council by the State of Manipur with katcha house structures made of wooden plank and G.C.I. sheets roofing comprising 10 (ten) rooms and had been running till March, 2010 when, in course of time, the School building became unusable as it was neither repaired nor was it renovated since its establishment in 1982. In fact, the School felt down after breaking apart and collapsed in the beginning of the year 2010 and since no new School building has been constructed by the State Government till date, it is being run, for the present, at the residence of Shri Themreichan Ngalung of Ringui Village. The parents of the School children have submitted a representation to the headman of the village to provide necessary materials and the petitioners also have submitted representations to the concerned authorities including the Chief Minister of Manipur and the Minister of Education, Government of Manipur and the same are still pending for disposal by the concerned authorities. 3.1 It has been submitted by Ms. 3.1 It has been submitted by Ms. H. Bisheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted by the Parliament with a view to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years; that Section 8(d) of the said Act provides that the appropriate Government shall provide infrastructure including school building, teaching staff and learning equipment; that the citizens have the fundamental rights of education as the same flow from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the respondents have failed to discharge their duties rendering the right to education meaningless and depriving the school children of their rights to education and good health for no fault of theirs. 4. Despite a number of opportunities being granted to the respondents for filing counter affidavit, they have failed to do so and since they have chosen not to contest the instant writ petition for the reason best known to them, the averments made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been admitted by them in terms of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Naseem Bano (Smt.) Vs. State of UP & ors. 1993 Suppl. (4) SCC 46; State of Assam Vs. Union of India (2010) 10 SCC 403; Asha Vs. PT. B.D. Sharama University of Health Sciences & ors., (2012) 7 SCC 389 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an averment made in the petition is expected to be specifically denied by the replying party and if there is no specific denial, such averment is deemed to have been admitted by the respondent. In other words, it is well settled that in case the averments made in the petition are not denied or controverted by the respondents therein, the same shall be deemed to have been admitted by them. 5. Education is a process through which one acquires knowledge, experience, skill and attitude. It makes an individual civilised, cultured and educated. Its goal is to make an individual perfect. Every society gives importance to education because it is a panacea for all evils. It is the key to solve various problems in life. 5. Education is a process through which one acquires knowledge, experience, skill and attitude. It makes an individual civilised, cultured and educated. Its goal is to make an individual perfect. Every society gives importance to education because it is a panacea for all evils. It is the key to solve various problems in life. Keeping in mind the value of education, Article 21A came to be inserted in the Constitution of India, by way of an amendment, with a view to give effect to Article 45 of the Constitution. Article 21A is as under:- “Article 21A. Right to Education - The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine”. Pursuant to the Article 21A, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted by the Union of India, the constitutional validity of which was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India & anr., reported in (2012) 6 SCC 1 relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, which held that the said Act is constitutionally valid. In respect of education and the 2009 Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “5. Education is a process which engages many different actors: the one who provides education (the teacher, the owner of an educational institution, the parents), the one who receives education (the child, the pupil and the one who is legally responsible for the one who receives education (the parents, the legal guardians, society and the State). These actors influence the right to education. 6. The 2009 Act makes the right of children to free and compulsory education justiciable. The 2009 Act envisages that each child must have access to a neighbourhood school. The 2009 Act has been enacted keeping in mind the crucial role of Universal Elementary Education for strengthening the social fabric of democracy through provision of equal opportunities to all. The directive principles of State policy enumerated in our Constitution lay down that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14 years. The said Act provides for right (entitlement) of children to free and compulsory admission, attendance and completion of elementary education in a neighbourhood school. 7. The directive principles of State policy enumerated in our Constitution lay down that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14 years. The said Act provides for right (entitlement) of children to free and compulsory admission, attendance and completion of elementary education in a neighbourhood school. 7. The word “free” in the long title to the 2009 Act stands for removal by the State of any financial barrier that prevents a child from completing 8 years of schooling. The word “compulsory” in that title stands for compulsion on the State and the parental duty to send children to school. To protect and give effect to this right of the child to education as enshrined in Article 21 and Article 21-A of the Constitution. Parliament has enacted the 2009 Act. 8. The 2009 Act received the assent of the President on 26-08-2009. It came into force w.e.f. 01-04-2010. The provisions of this Act are intended not only to guarantee right to free and compulsory education to children, but it also envisages imparting of quality education by providing required infrastructure and compliance with specified norms and standards in the schools. The Preamble states that the 2009 Act stands enacted inter alia to provide for free and compulsory education to all children of the age 6 to 14 years. The said Act has been enacted to give effect to Article 21-A of the Constitution.” But it is unfortunate that despite mandatory provisions being provided in the Act, the respondents have failed, in their duties, to fulfil the objectives sought to be achieved in the said Act, 2009 and in other words, the respondents have violated the provisions of the said Act. Ultimately, the inaction on the part of the respondents has deprived the children of the School of their right to education. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed with the direction that the respondents and in particular, the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 shall construct a school building, kitchen for mid-day meal cooking, toilets and also provide library books, magazines and newspapers to the Ringui Ayotang Primary School, Ukhrul District, Manipur within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. There shall be no order as to costs.