Allowed

Dlf Public School v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2021WRIC/12199/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order imposing penalties under the UP Self-Financed Independent Schools Act. The court held the order void for violating natural justice due to lack of recorded notice service and held contrary to a prior committee decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 2.9.2020 quashed; matter remitted for decision afresh; directions given for appearance and document submission.

Dlf Public School Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12199 of 2021 Petitioner :- Dlf Public School Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uday Pratap Singh,G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate),Kundan Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶4

Heard Mr. G. K. Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned Brief Holder for State-respondent.

¶5

DLF Public School the writ petitioner has filed present writ petition challenging order dated 2.9.2021 passed by respondent no. 2 District Fee Regulatory Committee, Ghaziabad whereby a decision has been taken to invoke the provisions of Section 8(10)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Self-Financed Independent Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2018 along with other penalties.

¶6

Present petition came up for admission on 28.5.2021 and this Court passed the following order :

¶7

"Mr. Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, will seek instructions in the matter, within 48 hours.

¶8

Lay this matter as fresh on 02.06.2021, before the appropriate Bench."

¶9

Mr. G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner contends that from perusal of the order impugned in present writ petition, it transpires that institution is alleged to have violated various directions issued by the Committee, as inspite of notices having been issued no response has been submitted by petitioner institution.

¶10

Assailing the order impugned, it is submitted by Mr. G. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that present writ petition has been filed primarily on the grounds that order impugned in present writ petition is violative of principles of natural justice and secondly the conclusion recorded in clause 9 of the impugned order is contrary to the earlier decision already taken by the Committee, as is evident from the letter dated 24.8.2020 which is on record at page 67 of the paper book.

¶11

It is thus submitted by learned Senior counsel that

¶12

controversy involved in present writ petition does not involve disputed questions of fact nor does it involve verification of facts. The matter can be heard and disposed of finally without calling for a counter affidavit. Mr. Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel on instructions received by him does not dispute the aforesaid. Consequently, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally without calling for a counter affidavit.

¶13

Mr. G. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel in challenge to the impugned order primarily contends that from perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the same contains a recital to the effect that inspite of notices/letters having been issued to the petitioner no response has been submitted nor the required documents have been submitted. Similarly in clause 9 of the impugned order a unanimous decision has been taken to invoke the provisions of Section 8(10)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh SelfFinanced Independent Schools (Fee Regulation) Act, 2018 against petitioner institution.

¶14

In the submission of learned Senior Counsel both the reasonings recorded in the impugned order are erroneous and illegal. Elaborating his submission he submits that no finding has been recorded in the impugned order with regard to service of notice / letter referred to in first paragraph of impugned order dated 2.9.2020. In the absence of above, petitioner did not have any opportunity of hearing before respondent no. 2 prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 2.9.2020. He has invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 59 of the writ petition in support of aforesaid. Similarly with regard to the recital contained in clause 9 of the impugned order, learned Senior Counsel contends that the same is contrary to the decision already taken by the committee as is evident from the letter dated 24.8.2020 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition).

¶15

At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner invited attention of the Court to the judgment of Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner; AIR 1978 page 851 to submit that the veracity of an order is to be judged on the basis of reasons contained in the order itself. The reasons cannot be supplemented by way of an affidavit. The order impugned in the present writ petition is to be judged in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court as noted herein above. When judged in the light of above, order impugned cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

¶16

Opposing the present writ petition, Mr. Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel contends that from instructions received by him as well as from perusal of impugned order it is

¶17

evident that notices/letters were issued to the petitioner but the petitioner failed to respond to the same. However, he could not dispute the submission urged by learned Senior Counsel regarding the service of notices/letters alleged to have been sent to the petitioner and further the absence of finding in that regard in the impugned order. Similarly learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner regarding the recital contained in clause 9 of impugned order wherein the Committee in its meeting held on 24.8.2020 had taken a decision to grant ten days further time to the institution to submit necessary documents with the Committee. Thus, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner.

¶18

Having heard learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, Mr. Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel and from perusal of record the undisputed position which emerges is that the order impugned dated 2.9.2020 (annexure 2 to the writ petition) contains various factual assertions against the petitioner but there is no foundation in the impugned order with regard to the service of notices/letters which are alleged to have been sent to the petitioner as well as affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. Similarly in respect of paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the Court finds that recital contain therein is contrary to the decision already taken by the Committee as is evident from the recital contained at page 68 of paper book.

¶19

Mr. G. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in all fairness further submits that the petitioner is ready to appear before the Committee on the date as fixed by this Court on which date petitioner shall submit all the documents demanded. Thereafter the Committee may fix any date for hearing and thereafter appropriate order may be passed. Submission made by Mr.G. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel is both fair and equitable.

¶20

In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 2.9.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 District Fee Regulatory Committee, Ghaziabad through District Magistrate, Ghaziabad Annexure 2 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent no. 2 for decision afresh. Petitioner shall appear before respondent no. 2 on 14.6.2021 and shall submit all necessary documents as demanded by the Committee on that date itself. Thereafter the Committee shall fix 16.6.2021 as the next date of hearing and thereafter appropriate order shall be passed.

¶21

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 2.6.2021 Kuldeep

Dlf Public School v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dlf Public School 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firtu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Saqib and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Alias Randhir Vs State of U.P.

Jony @ Vinay Jatav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Goldy@Gaurav Jayant Vs State of U.P. and Another