Disposed

Committee of Management of Purvanchal Purv Madhyamik Vidhyalaya and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024WRIC/21138/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to grant-in-aid to their educational institution. The court observed that a detailed representation was already pending before the respondent and directed the authority to decide it within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 1 directed to decide the pending representation by a reasoned order within three months.

Committee of Management of Purvanchal Purv… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108534

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21138 of 2024 Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Of Purvanchal Purv Madhyamik Vidhyalaya And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naresh Chandra Tripahti,Suchita Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to decide the representation preferred by the petitioners through post on 16.02.2024, to the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P., inter-alia, praying for grant-of-aid by the State Government in the light of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006 as contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that vide letter dated 04.01.2007 issued by the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Tahsil), Azamgarh written to the Manager of the institution run by the petitioners Committee of Management that the School of the petitioners has not been taken in grant-in-aid list on the ground that the same does not fulfill the requirements as provided in the Government Order dated 07.09.2006.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the provisions of paragraph 7 of the aforesaid Government Order dated 07.09.2006 provides that the Regional Level Committee is required to sort out the application forms having some deficiencies and not fulfilling the requirement, then those requirements and shortcoming were required to be informed to the applicant schools for removing the defects in application forms and after getting the defects removed the Regional Level Committee was required to forward the list of the names of schools on the basis of seniority determined on the basis of priority of grant of permanent recognition.

¶9

It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that no such defect was ever pointed out or classified by the Regional Assistant Director (Basic Education) Azamgarh / respondent no. 3 to the petitioners as there was no defect / shortcomings in the

¶10

application and the report for the grant-in-aid by the State Government. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the absence of any such intimation the petitioners could not remove the defects, if any. It has been categorically submitted that the petitioners' institution fulfills all the conditions that are required for the purpose of grant-in-aid under the Government Order dated 07.09.2006.

¶11

Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State by opposing the present writ petition submitted that vide order dated 04.01.2007 the reasons have been assigned for not granting of the aid as claimed by the petitioners.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners after arguing the case at some length submitted that he has moved a detailed representation which is pending before the Principal Secretary (Basic Education) / respondent no. 1 for disposal and prayed that a direction be issued by this Court to the respondent no. 1 to consider the said representation and to pass appropriate orders in the light of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. He submits that the grievance of the petitioners can appropriately ventilated if a direction is issued to the concerned authority / respondent no. 1 to decide the said representation by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶13

Taking into consideration the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and in view of the fact that a representation of the petitioners narrating their cases for the ventilation of their grievances is already pending before the respondent no. 1, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep this writ petition pending.

¶14

Without adverting on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to decide the pending application / representation of the petitioners by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order along with the copy of the said application / representation is produced before it.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is consigned to records.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Arif

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Committee of Management of Purvanchal Purv Madhyamik Vidhyalaya and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Committee of Management of Purvanchal Purv Madhyamik Vidhyalaya and Another v. State of Up 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

Megha Chaudhary vs State of Up and 4 Others

Alok Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 5 Others

Mohd. Khalil Khan vs Smt. Naheed and 4 Others

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Tivari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Bhikam Pal vs State of U.P. and Another

Vidya Ram vs State of U.P. and 2 Others