Disposed

C/M Sri Babban Singh Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalaya Ratasiya Kothi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2021WRIC/5374/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction for the State Government to decide on the recognition of a Mahavidyalaya. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, to take a decision in accordance with law within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 1 to take decision in recognition matter within three months.

C/M Sri Babban Singh Shikshak Prashikshan… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5374 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Sri Babban Singh Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalaya Ratasiya Kothi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kushmondeya Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bharat Pratap Singh,Dhananjay Awasthi

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

¶6

Earlier on 27.02.2020 following order was passed by this Court;

¶7

"Following orders were passed in the matter on 13.2.2020:-

¶8

''Grievance is that the State is acting in a contradictory manner inasmuch as while rejecting the petitioner's claim for grant of recognition, it has referred to a Government Order dated 7.9.2017, as per which a request has been made not to recognise additional colleges in the State of U.P., while the Secretary of the Examination Regulatory Authority has published a notification on 14.3.2018 inviting fresh applications for the same purpose. Submission is that such mutually inconsistent stand cannot be permitted as it would clearly be arbitrary.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State authorities as also Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, who has appeared for NCTE may obtain instructions in the matter.

¶10

Post as fresh on 27.2.2020, showing the name of Sri Bharat Pratap Singh as counsel for the NCTE."

¶11

Instructions have been received from the Secretary of the Examination Regulatory Authority but the specific query of the Court remains unanswered. The allegation that the State authorities are acting in an arbitrary manner has not been explained.

¶12

Let the Principal Secretary and the Director of the department concerned file their personal affidavits clarifying the stand taken in that regard.

¶13

List this case amongst top ten cases on 18.3.2020."

¶14

Pursuant to which personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Basic Education as well as the Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training, has been filed. Today when the matter was taken up, Sri Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has filed supplementary affidavit wherein he has

¶15

brought notice of the Court the correspondence between the respondent nos. 3 and 4 wherein it has been stated that the matter regarding recognition of the institution in question was under consideration in the meeting held on 11.12.2020.

¶16

Sri Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that as the matter is pending consideration before the State Government a direction may be issued to consider the matter in light of the correspondence dated 10.06.2020.

¶17

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, as such, with the consent of parties present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 1/Principal Secretary (Basic Education), Government of U.P. at Lucknow, to take decision in the aforesaid matter, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of next three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court.

¶18

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Shekhar

C/M Sri Babban Singh Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalaya Ratasiya Kothi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Sri Babban Singh Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalaya Ratasiya Kothi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anil Kumar Gupta Alias Babban Vs State of U P and 4 Others

C/M Shree Parmanand Smarak Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad and 4 Others

Ketpal Vs Commissioner Aligarh Mandal and Others

Tara Chandra Agrwal Vs Keshav Prasad and 4 Others

Smt. Beena Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others