Dismissed

M.K. Convent School and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 May 2018WRIC/17282/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged an order revoking temporary school recognition for non-operation. The High Court dismissed the writ, allowing the petitioner liberty to apply afresh for recognition after repair, without letting the impugned order influence the fresh inspection and approval.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without interfering with the impugned order; liberty granted to file afresh for recognition after repair, to be dealt with without influence of impugned findings.

M.K. Convent School and Another Vs State of U.P… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17282 of 2018 Petitioner :- M.K. Convent School And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav

¶2

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶3

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶4

Withe their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting a formal counter affidavit.

¶5

By impugned order dated 28.3.2018, the District Basic Education Officer has revoked the temporary recognition granted to the institution on 9.9.2009 for running classes from I to V standard. The order has been passed in purported exercise of power under Section 18(3) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 read with Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the said Act. The specific finding recorded in the impugned order is that the institution was not found operational in the building in respect of which approval was earlier granted.

¶6

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that during rainy season the school building got damaged and therefore, students were shifted to a nearby building. He submitted that the building has now been repaired and it is fit to be used as a school building.

¶7

After some argument he submitted that the petitioners would be filing a fresh application seeking recognition in respect of the building which has now been repaired and respondents may be directed to accord consideration to the said application without being influenced by the impugned order.

¶8

Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 submitted that fresh recognition would be granted only if the petitioners are able to satisfy the authorities that the building as it exists, fully complies with the norms laid down under the Act. He submitted that in case the petitioners fulfil the said requirement, there would be no difficulty in according fresh approval.

¶9

Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned order, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to apply afresh for grant of recognition, and in which event, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law, after carrying out fresh inspection, without being influenced by the findings recorded in the impugned order.

¶10

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶11

Order Date :- 22.5.2018

¶12

skv

M.K. Convent School and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K. Convent School and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Kumar Vs Vice Chancellor Univercity of Allahabad and 3 Others

Shri Bhoop Singh Smirity Mahila Mahavidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Maharshi Dayanand Vidyalaya Samiti Manauri and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Chitrakoot Shiksha Samiti, Vikas Nagar, Chitrakoot and Another Vs State of Up and 3 Others

C/M Sonia Mahila Vidyalaya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kuldeep Raikwar(Minor) Vs State of U P and Another