Remanded

Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, through President and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2012WP/7251/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside orders withdrawing the respondents' school recognition. It held authorities erred in ignoring the school building collapse and acted illegally by adding unspecified grounds (exam results) after objection, violating natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside and proceedings remanded to Deputy Director of Education for fresh consideration and fresh order within three months.

Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, through President and Ors… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 of 5 WP.7251.2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7251 OF 2012

¶4

Vikas Shikshan Sanstha and another Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶7

Respondents

¶8

Mr.N.R.Bandiwadekar for Petitioners.

¶9

Ms.S.S.Bhende, AGP for Respondents State.

¶10

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 12 September 2012

¶12

PC :

¶13

On 18 June 1983 permission was granted to the Petitioners to start a Marathi medium Secondary School on an unaided basis for Standards eight to ten at Killabhag, Miraj, District Sangli, by the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur. Subsequently on 2 May 1984, an order was passed by the Deputy Director of Education permitting the Petitioners to start Standards five to seven. According to the Petitioners, as a result of heavy rain and an earthquake on 17 October 1993, the school building collapsed. On the very next day i.e. on 18 October 1993, the First Petitioner addressed a communication to the Fifth Respondent, the Education Officer

¶14

2 of 5 WP.7251.2012

¶15

(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli and recorded that event. On 18 October 1993, the Deputy Education Officer visited the school and made a report recording that the structure had collapsed and that it was not possible to enter the class rooms as a result of which the teaching work had stopped. The management was directed to conduct classes by obtaining alternate premises. Subsequently, on 18 October 1993, a communication was addressed by the Petitioners to the Education Officer (Secondary). This was followed by further letters dated 28 October 1993, 10 November 1993 and 4 August 1994. The record shows that the authorities were duly kept apprised.

¶16

On 7 March 1995, a notice was issued to the Petitioners by the Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur calling upon them to show cause as to why their recognition should not be withdrawan under the Secondary School Code on the ground that the school had been closed. The Petitioners submitted their reply on 13 March 1995 stating that the school had never been closed. An order withdrawing the recognition was passed by the Deputy Director of Education on the ground that the Petitioners had not made any disclosure in pursuance of the notice to show cause. This order has been confirmed on 25 June 2012 by the Director of Education. Hence the petition.

¶17

Two submissions have been urged on behalf of the Petitioners. Firstly it has been submitted that it is incorrect to allege that the school had been closed. The building where the school was situated had collapsed and this was verified by the Deputy Education Officer on 18 October 1993. Subsequently, the Petitioners addressed a

¶18

3 of 5 WP.7251.2012

¶19

communication to the Education Officer (Secondary) on 18 October 1993. According to the Petitioners, the school has not been closed and has been conducted until the date.

¶20

Secondly it has been urged that though the notice to show cause alleged only one ground for withdrawal of recognition namely that the school has been closed, the Appellate Authority has held, on the basis of an additional reason namely that the results of the school showed that only 12.5% of the students had passed in the Board examinations of March 1995, that the recognition should be withdrawn. This was not a ground which was set out in the notice to show cause.

¶21

On the other hand, the AGP relied upon Clause-7.6 of the Secondary School Code and submitted that a withdrawal of the recognition was justified.

¶22

Clause-7.6 of the Secondary School Code provides as under :

¶23

"7.6 The Management shall not shift any school run by it from its existing location to any other location for any reason, without prior written permission of Government. If the Management shifts the school without prior permission of Government, the recognition of such a school shall automatically stand withdrawn on ground of such unauthorised shifting."

¶24

In the present case, in our view, the order withdrawing recognition is required to be reconsidered by the Deputy Director of Education for two reasons. First and foremost, from the report of the Deputy Education Officer (Secondary) dated 18 October 1993, it

¶25

4 of 5 WP.7251.2012

¶26

appears that the building of the school had collapsed and the management was directed to take steps to accommodate the students in alternate premises. Immediately on 18 October 1993, the Education Officer (Secondary) was informed about this. There are subsequent communications which are also part of the record. It would have been necessary for the Deputy Director of Education to consider the provisions of Clause-7.6 of the Secondary School Code having due regard to the facts which have been placed on the record. Secondly, though the only ground in the notice to show cause was that the school had been closed, the Appellate Authority considered an additional reason namely the results of the school for the year ending March-1995. This was not a part of the notice to show cause. To rely on that ground without notice to the Petitioners constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶27

In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders of the Deputy Director of Education and the Director of Education (Secondary and Higher Secondary) dated 28 May 1995 and 25 June 2012. We remit the proceedings back to the Deputy Director of Education for fresh consideration. We clarify that we have not expressed any view on the suitability of the premises in which the school is being run. It will be open to the Deputy Director of Education to cause a report to be obtained from the Education Officer (Secondary) in regard to the existing premises where the school is being conducted and the suitability of the premises for the purposes of conducting a secondary school. Since the Petitioners now have notice of the second ground for withdrawal of recognition proposed to be

¶28

5 of 5 WP.7251.2012

¶29

relied upon by the Department-viz; that relating to the results, they would be at liberty to respond thereto within four weeks. The Deputy Director of Education is at liberty to issue a supplementary show cause notice after a fresh inspection, if he considers it necessary. The Deputy Director of Education shall pass a fresh order within three months from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is produced on his record. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶30

The petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

MST

Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, through President and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, through President and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

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

Kai. Vasantrao Naik Samajik Shaikshanik Krida Va Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Akkalkot, Solapur Vs the Director, Vjnt, Obc and Special Backward Communities Welfare and Ors.

Kai. Vasantrao Naik Samajik Shaikshanik Krida Va Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Akkalkot, Solapur Vs the Director, Vjnt, Obc and Special Backward Communities Welfare and Ors.

Dattajirao Khanwilkar Eduation Trust, through Chairman Shri. Amar Madhukar Warde Vs Education Officer (Primary), Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibaug and Ors.

Amar Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai

Nenshi Monji and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Ms. Sandhya Laxman Ghosalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.