Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 450 (MP)

Rakesh Tyagi v. State of M. P.

2016-06-15

ALOK ARADHE, ANAND PATHAK

body2016
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. In this intra Court appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 8.2.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7989/2016. 3. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is a resident of Village Kanathar, Tahsil Mehgaon, District Bhind. The appellant's daughter is studying in Government Girls School Kanathar. The school was being run in a old building. However the decision was taken to shift the same in new building, thereupon, the writ petition was filed before this Court namely Writ Petition No.978/2012 by some of the residents against shifting to the new premises. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.6.2013 with the observations that no case for interference in the order of the Collector for shifting the school from the existing place to new place where construction has already been started is made out. Therefore, by an order dated 2.9.2013, the District Education Officer took a decision to shift the school to old premises. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.7989/2013 which has been disposed of by learned Single Judge vide order dated 8.2.2016 with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector as well as District Education Officer, Bhind with regard to his grievances. 4. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the land was reserved for the purpose of school building and in the school building the construction is being commencing, therefore, the location of the school building could not have been changed. It is further submitted that the old school is in dilapidated condition. Therefore, the education cannot be imparted to the children in the old school building. It is further submitted that the order of the shifting of the school is contrary to the order passed by the Division Bench. 5. On the other hand countering the aforesaid submission learned Deputy Government Advocate as well as Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for respondent No.4 have submitted that new school comprises only two rooms where education cannot be imparted to the children. 5. On the other hand countering the aforesaid submission learned Deputy Government Advocate as well as Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for respondent No.4 have submitted that new school comprises only two rooms where education cannot be imparted to the children. It is further submitted that State Government has spent the considerable amount and attention of this Court has been invited to the certificate annexed at page No.25 in the return filed in the writ appeal. It has been stated that the respondents have constructed the additional rooms from the academic session 2007-2008 till the academic session 2010-2011 and the old school has been repaired. 6. In view of the rival stand taken by counsel for the respondents, in our opinion, the matter involves disputed question of the fact which cannot be adjudicated in the proceeding under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly relegated the appellant to approach the Collector as well as District Education Officer, Bhind with regard to the redressal of his grievances. 7. Needless to state that Collector and District Education Officer shall ensure that proper and adequate arrangements are be made for students so that education can be imparted to them. 8. Accordingly the writ appeal is disposed of. Sanjay Bahirani for appellant; Amit Bansal, Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5/State; M.P.S. Raghuvanshi for respondent No.4.