Dismissed

Lalita v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2024WRIC/18543/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition impugning an order requiring the respondent institution to refund an excess grant amount of Rs. 9,63,800 received under the RTE Act, 2009, holding no interference was warranted under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned refund order and direction to decide the pending representation is dismissed.

Lalita vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:111066

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18543 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Lalita Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tej Bhan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tej Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶8

"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.4.2024 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur (Respondent no.3) (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).

¶9

ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.3 to decide the representation dated 26.4.2024."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is manager of the institution concerned. He further submitted that under Section 12 (1) (C) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the provision has been made for financial aid to the children belonging to weaker section. He next submitted that the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur has directed the institution vide order dated 15.4.2024 for refund of Rs.9,63,800/- accordingly, petitioner filed a representation dated 26.4.2024 before respondent no.3, which is pending, as such, necessary direction be issued for the disposal of the petitioner's representation expeditiously.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel submitted that no interference is required in the matter as the excess payment made to the petitioner's institution is directed to be refunded under the impugned order dated 25.4.2024.

¶12

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶13

In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of

¶14

the letter / order dated 25.4.2024 issued/ passed by District Basic Education Officer will be relevant, which is as under:

¶15

" ककरकरलरजजलकबबजसकशशककअजधककरर , जजनपपर।

¶16

पतकतक - एस०एस०ए० /RTE/84/2024-25, अपपल 2024

¶17

पबनधक

¶18

एस०एम०आर०पक०शव० / उ०पक०शव० मछलरशहरजजनपपर।

¶19

शवषर - आर०टर०ईकबअनतररतधनरकशशजमककरनबकबसमबनधमम। शननशपलकएतवअशनवकररबकलशशककककअजधककरअजधशनरम , 2009 ककधकरक 12(1) कबअनतररतरपरसहकरशततमकनरतक पकपशवदकलरयममअलकशभतसममहऔरदपबरलवररकबबचचयककककक - एक / पमवरपकथशमककककममशपलकपशतपमशतरकक सतरकपनजजलकसतरसबरशठतसशमशतदकरककरकरकररकजजसमम 62 बचचबशपलकपशतपमशतरहबतपअहरपकरबररबजजसआधकर परशवभकरदकरकधनरकशशर० 334800( तरनलकखचजतरसहजकरआठसज ) ककअनतरणशवदकलरकबखकतमममशकरक जकनकथकपरनतपजलशपककरतपशटवशधनरकशशर० 1298600.00 ( बकरहलकखअठकनवबहजकरछनसजर० ) समबननधत शवदकलरकबखकतकसतखरक 383802010669831 रमशनरनबबकऑफइनणणरकमछलरशहरकबखकतकममशवभकरदकरक अनतररतहकरररहप।जकशकवकसतशवकरपसबपबशषतककजकनबवकलरधनरकशशसबर 963800( नजलकखशतरसठहजकर आठसज ) अजधकहप।

¶20

अतनआपककशनदरशशतशकरकजकतकहप , शकधनरकशशर० 963800 ( नजलकखशतरसठहजकरआठसज ) ककशणमकणण णडकफटशवभकरकबपकममशवदकलरकबखकतकसतखरक 383802010669831 सबबनवककरतरनशदवसममउपलबधकरकनक सपशननशचतकरम।

¶21

णड० ( रकरखनकथपटबल ) जजलकबबजसकशशककअजधककरर। जजनपपर। "

¶22

Considering the averment made in the writ petition as well as the order / letter dated 25.4.2024, as quoted, no case for interference is made out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as excess payment made to the institution is ordered to be refunded under the impugned letter/ order dated 25.4.2024.

¶23

8. The writ petition is dismissed , accordingly.

¶24

Order Date :- 9.7.2024 Rameez

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lalita v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Nishad vs State of Up and 19 Others

Rajesh Kumar vs State of Up and 2 Others

Maharaj Singh vs State of Up and 4 Others

Janardan Singh vs State of Up and 4 Others

Nagar Nigam Meerut vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Robertsganj Gas Agency vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 2 Others