Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 124 (MP)

Rachna Singh v. State of M. P.

2019-02-06

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2019
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking direction to respondent No. 5 to permit the daughter of the petitioner to attend the classes. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that although Scindia Girls School is a private school, but she has approached respondents No. 2 to 4 for issuing direction to respondent No. 5 for permitting her daughter to attend the classes, therefore, this petition can be entertained. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also made a representation to respondent No. 5 thereby tendering apology for the act of indiscipline shown by her daughter and has prayed mercy for permitting her to attend the classes, as she is the student of Class-XII and if she is not allowed to attend the class, then her entire year would be spoiled because a student would learn in a better manner if she is taught by the trained teachers in comparison to her parents, who are not trained in teaching. It is further submitted that the petitioner on behalf of her daughter is once again tendering her unconditional apology and would again tender her unconditional apology to the respondent no.5 for the act of indiscipline shown by her daughter, namely, Ku. Sakshi Singh and in order to save one academic year, she may be allowed to attend the classes. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to find out that- "whether Scindia Girls School is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India for the purposes of exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not?" 6. Undisputedly, Scindia Girls School is imparting education to the students. The Supreme Court in the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. Rudani and others, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607 , has held as under : "15. The Law relating to mandamus has made the most spectacular advance. It may be recalled that the remedy by prerogative writs in England started with very limited scope and suffered from many procedural disadvantages. The Law relating to mandamus has made the most spectacular advance. It may be recalled that the remedy by prerogative writs in England started with very limited scope and suffered from many procedural disadvantages. To overcome the difficulties, Lord Gardiner (the Lord Chancellor) in pursuance of section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commission Act, 1965, requested the Law Commission "to review the existing remedies for the judicial control of administrative acts and omission with a view to evolving a simpler and more effective procedure." The Law Commission made their report in March 1976 (Law Com No. 73). It was implemented by Rules of Court (Order 53) in 1977 and given statutory force in 1981 by section 31 of to Supreme Court Act 1981. It combined all the former remedies into one proceeding called Judicial Review. Lord Denning explains the scope of this "judicial review": "At one stroke the Courts could grant whatever relief was appropriate. Not only certiorari and mandamus, but also declaration and injunction. Even damages. The procedure was much more simple and expeditious. Just a summons instead of a writ. No formal pleadings. The evidence was given by affidavit. As a rule no cross-examination, no discovery, and so forth. But there were important safeguards. In particular, in order to qualify, the applicant had to get the leave of a judge. The Statute is phrased in flexible terms. It gives scope for development. It uses the words "having regard to". Those words are very indefinite. The result is that the Courts are not bound hand and foot by the previous law. They are to 'have regard to' it. So the previous law as to who are--and who are not--public authorities, is not absolutely binding. Nor is the previous law as to the matters in respect of which relief may be granted. This means that the judges can develop the public law as they think best. That they have done and are doing." (See--The Closing Chapter--by Rt. Hon. Lord Denning p. 122). 226 confers wide powers on the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs. This is a striking departure from the English law. Under Article 226, writs can be issued to "any person or authority". It can be issued "for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose". 17. Article 226 reads: "226. This is a striking departure from the English law. Under Article 226, writs can be issued to "any person or authority". It can be issued "for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose". 17. Article 226 reads: "226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs (1) Notwithstanding anything in Art. 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any person or authority including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including (Writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part II and for any other purpose. XXX XXX XXX XXX " 20. In Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual ors [1969] 3 SCR 773, this Court said that a mandamus can issue against a person or body to carry out the duties placed on them by the Statutes even though they are not public officials or statutory body. It was observed (at 778): "It is, however, not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or an official body. A mandamus can issue, for instance, to an official or a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings. A mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purpose of fulfilling public responsibilities. (See Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed. Vol. II p. 52 and onwards)." 7. Again in the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 331, the Supreme Court has held as under : "12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (See Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed. Vol. II p. 52 and onwards)." 7. Again in the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 331, the Supreme Court has held as under : "12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust, there can be no doubt that even a purely private body, where the State has no control over its internal affairs, would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, for issuance of a writ of mandamus. Provided, of course, the private body is performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State Authorities." 8. Thus, it is clear that as Scindia Girls School is imparting education to the students which is subject to the Rules and Regulations and its activities are closely supervised by the authorities, therefore, it is held that for the purpose of exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Scindia Girls School is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, this petition is held to be maintainable. 9. The controversy in the present case lies in a narrow compass. It appears that the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Ku. Sakshi Singh was involved in some act of gross indiscipline on 20.12.2018 and accordingly the following letter was issued to the petitioner : "Dear Parent, Your daughter Sakshi Singh was involved in an act of gross indiscipline on the 20th of December, 2018. As she is in class XII and has her Board Examination in March, it is important for her to focus on academics. The school cannot take responsibility for students indulging in acts of indiscipline. She obviously needs your personal care and vigil. Therefore, it has been decided that she should stay at home and concentrate on the academics. She will be permitted to come to school for her practical examination and will be checked into school for the day of the examination only. She will be checked out after her Practical examination of the day is over. Therefore, it has been decided that she should stay at home and concentrate on the academics. She will be permitted to come to school for her practical examination and will be checked into school for the day of the examination only. She will be checked out after her Practical examination of the day is over. The Date sheet and Board Admit Card will be handed over to you when it is received by us. Please take her to the exam center for the Board papers under your own arrangement. Naina Dhillon Vice Principal" 10. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached different authorities including the Principal, Scindia Girls School and has tendered her unconditional apology along with her daughter and had sought pardon with an assurance that no such activity would be repeated in future. It is not out of place to mention here that the daughter of the petitioner is a student of Class-XII and the result of Class-XII plays a very important role in the career of a student for choosing further courses of education. Although the letter dated 22.12.2018 Annexure P-1 written by respondent No. 5 as well as present petition are silent about the act of indiscipline committed by the daughter of the petitioner, but from the letter dated 22.12.2018, it appears that the daughter of the petitioner was involved in the act of indiscipline committed on 20.12.2018. Thus, it can be presumed that except a single and stray incident of indiscipline, there is no allegation against the daughter of the petitioner that her conduct in the school was indecent or she was undisciplined in spite of various opportunities given by the school authorities. Thus, it can be presumed that except a single and stray incident of indiscipline, there is no allegation against the daughter of the petitioner that her conduct in the school was indecent or she was undisciplined in spite of various opportunities given by the school authorities. It is true that for maintaining the discipline in the school, the authorities are required to take stern action against its students, but in absence of the details of the act of indiscipline committed by the daughter of the petitioner and in absence of any allegation that on earlier occasion also the daughter of the petitioner was involved in indisciplined acts and in spite of repeated warnings, she has not improved herself, this Court is of the considered opinion that specifically when the petitioner herself along with her daughter has tendered unconditional apology to respondent No. 5 and because the examination of Class-XII are going to be held in the month of March and, therefore, the education of the student during the last months of her school days is important for her career, therefore, without condoning the act of indiscipline shown by the daughter of the petitioner, but taking a humanitarian view as well as considering the subsequent conduct of the petitioner as well as her daughter in tendering the unconditional apology to respondent No. 5, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent No. 5 must rise to the occasion by accepting the apology tendered by the petitioner and her daughter and by showing magnitude must allow the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Ku. Sakshi Singh to attend the remaining classes so that she can prepare her Class-XII examination without any hindrance. 11. Accordingly, it is directed that if the petitioner along with her daughter Ku. Sakshi Singh once again submits an unconditional apology to respondent No. 5, the respondent No. 5 shall allow the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Ku. Sakshi Singh to attend the remaining classes, so that her career may be saved. Needless to say that the daughter of the petitioner shall be allowed to attend the class from the day when she once again tenders her unconditional apology to respondent No. 5. 12. With aforesaid directions, the petition is finally disposed of. Lokendra Shrivastava for petitioner; R.K. Soni Government Advocate for respondents/State.