Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1487 (ALL)

Shiv Dayal v. State of U. P.

2016-04-21

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT The petitioner runs a recognised Junior Basic School. He is aggrieved by a notice dated 1.9.2015 issued by respondent no. 3 (District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad), wherein it is mentioned that as per the report of District Magistrate, Sadar, Farrukhabad dated 22.8.2015, the School is being run on encroached land belonging to wife of an ex-army personnel and the recognition was obtained from the authorities on the basis of manipulated documents. Consequently, proceedings for cancellation of recognition are pending. In the meantime, the petitioner has been directed to inform the guardians of students studying in the institution to get their wards admitted in some other institutions and a further direction has been issued to forthwith close down the institution, failing which legal proceedings for enforcing such direction shall be initiated. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was never apprised of the report of the District Magistrate, Sadar, Farrukhabad dated 22.8.2015, a reference whereof finds place in the impugned notice. He further submitted that before issuing the impugned direction, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. He has referred to another communication by Block Education Officer dated 10.2.2016 addressed to the Manager of the Institution. Thereby, the copy of the enquiry report and the complaint were forwarded to the petitioner, but again a direction has been issued to ensure compliance of previous directions within a period of three days. It is thus sought to be suggested that the respondents themselves admit that copy of the complaint and enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner before issuing the impugned notice dated 1.9.2015 and it was supplied to him by the Block Education Officer vide its letter dated 10.2.2016 only after legal notice was given by the petitioner through his counsel. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and S.K. Verma appearing on behalf of the third respondent, who has issued the impugned notice, also could not refer to any material on record, which may go to indicate that any notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before issuing the directions contained in the impugned notice. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and S.K. Verma appearing on behalf of the third respondent, who has issued the impugned notice, also could not refer to any material on record, which may go to indicate that any notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before issuing the directions contained in the impugned notice. Further, it is not disputed before this Court that the recognition of the institution has yet not been cancelled, although proceedings in respect thereof had been undertaken and are stated to be pending. In the opinion of the Court, apart from there being violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned direction for closing down the institution and for transferring the students to some other institution cannot be sustained, as concededly the recognition of the institution has yet not been cancelled. 4. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the firm opinion that the directions issued by the third respondent are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. However, it is clarified that it shall be open to the third respondent to conclude the proceedings that had been initiated against the petitioner for cancellation of the recognition of the institution after following the procedure prescribed by law. Needless to mention that while taking such decision, it shall be open to the authorities to afford opportunity of hearing to the complainant as well. 5. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.