Disposed

Krishna Kant and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2018WRIC/19075/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, teachers in UP-recognised institutions, seek mandate to prevent school closure following management's refusal to resume operations. Court issues notice, permits approach, and directs State to examine grievance within 12 weeks post-notice to concerned management.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued; respondents directed to examine grievance and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks after due notice to management.

Krishna Kant and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19075 of 2018 Petitioner :- Krishna Kant And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi,Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal

¶3

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶4

The petitioners claim themselves to be teachers of Sri Harmilap Sanatan Dharm Vidyalaya, Punjabi Chowk, Budaun and primary section attached to it (Sri Harmilap Vishan Devi Sanatan Dharm Bal Niketan, Budaun). These are recognised institutions under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Management is refusing to run the institutions and has put locks on the main gate without seeking approval from the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention of the Court towards a communication dated 7.4.2018 by which District Basic Education Officer, Budaun has warned the Management/Headmaster not to take law in their hand and continue running the institute in accordance with law.

¶5

It is submitted that despite the said warning issued by District Basic Education Officer, the Management is not ready to run the institute and it has responded to the District Basic Education Officer by letter dated 12.4.2018 intimating him that the Management is not in a position to run the institute. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure that the institute is not closed down.

¶6

Learned standing counsel states that respondent no.1 is competent to examine the grievance of the petitioners.

¶7

Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to approach the first respondent with a certified copy of this order and a representation and in which event, the first respondent shall examine the grievance of the petitioners and shall pass appropriate orders, after due notice and opportunity of hearing to respondent no.4, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order alongwith representation.

¶8

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)

¶9

Order Date :- 30.5.2018 SL

Krishna Kant and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kant and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Guttu Mal Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Halim Muslim Post Graduate College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar Goswami and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Abhai Nandan Inter College and Another Vs State of U P and 7 Others

C/M Vimla Radheshyam Vidyalaya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others