Partly allowed

Hari Dutt Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2018WRIA/23121/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge writ petition challenging non-action on grant-in-aid application for a school. The court, finding no instructions from counsel, directed the respondent to consider the claim per Supreme Court and this Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

1st respondent directed to consider claim for grant-in-aid within specified period after verification.

Hari Dutt Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23121 of 2018 Petitioner :- Hari Dutt Sharma And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Shukla,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶4

The petitioners herein this petition have raised grievance of non-action on the part of the respondent No.1 on the application forwarded by the Committee of Management for bringing attached primary section on grant-in-aid in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Pawan Kumar Divedi reported in 2014 (9) SCC 692 and the subsequent order of the Division Bench by this Court in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi v. State of U.P. reported in 2015 (3) ADJ 567.

¶5

This Court on the earlier occasion had desired the instructions at the end of the learned Standing counsel vide order dated 29th October, 2018 and the case was posted in the additional cause list but today learned Standing Counsel seems to have failed to have instructions in the matter and, therefore, there is no question to raise any presumption that the order has been passed on the application of the Committee of Management of the Institution for bringing the institution on grant-in-aid of which the petitioners are bound to be ultimate beneficiary. No useful purpose, therefore, would be served in keeping the matter pending and inviting the counter affidavit at this stage.

¶6

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not object to the order for being passed in the nature of direction to the 1st respondent to consider the claim of the Committee of Management of the Institution and also the petitioner for bringing the institution on grant-in-aid in accordance with law.

¶7

In view of the above, the 1st respondent is hereby directed to consider the claim of the petitioners and Committee of Management of the institution for bringing the Junior High School/ institution on grant-in-aid in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court as well as of this Court ( supra ) within a specified period of time after due verification of the record and the eligibility criteria fixed/ prescribed by the State Government in that regard.

¶8

The writ petition stands disposed of at this stage.

¶9

Order Date :- 27.11.2018/ Atmesh

Hari Dutt Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Dutt Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sri Ranu Rathor and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yadvendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Renu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Girijesh Prasad Upadhyay and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others