Dismissed

Adarsh Gramya Bharti Sikshan Samiti Tamnar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Nov 2024WPC/4460/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitution of a sub-committee by the Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Siksha Mandal to ascertain actual control over a school. The court held the petition was premature as no final decision had been taken yet, citing lack of cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on the ground being premature; no order as to costs.

Adarsh Gramya Bharti Sikshan Samiti Tamnar Vs… — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 9

¶2

SATISH TUMANE

¶3

Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE

¶4

AFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Order Reserved on 06.11.2024 Order Pronounced on 21.11.2024

¶7

WPC No. 4460 of 2021

¶8

1 - Adarsh Gramya Bharti Sikshan Samiti Tamnar District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, A Registered Society Registered Under Cg Society Registration Act, 1973 Through Its Secretary- Laxmi, Narayan Choudhary, S/o Late Shri Rajaram Choudhary, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Godhi, Tahsil- Tamnar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Principal Secretary, Commerce And Industries Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Registrar, Firms And Societies, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Assistant Registrar, Firms And Societies, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

5 - Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

6- District Education Officer, Raigarh, District- Raigarh

¶17

2 / 9

¶18

7 - Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Through- Its Secretary, Raipur, District- Raipur

¶19

8 - Adarsh Bharti Sikshan Samiti, Kirodimal Nagar, Through Its President Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal

¶20

9 - Jindal Adarsh Gramya Bharti Higher Secondary School, Kirodimal Nagar, Tehsil- Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶21

		... Respondents
For Petitioner :	Shri AnandDadariya,Advocate
For Respondents N.1 to 6 :	Shri Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.7 :	Shri R. S. Patel, Advocate
For Respondents No.8 & 9 :	Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate

¶22

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal CAV Order

¶23

21-11-2024

¶24

By way of this petition, the petitioner-Adarsh Gramya Bharti Sikshan Samiti, Tamnar, District Raigarh, a registered Society (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner-Samiti”), has questioned the legality and propriety of the order dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Respondent No.7Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Siksha Mandal (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent No.7-Mandal”), whereby its Recognition Committee has constituted a Sub Committee for re-consideration of change of name of the Samiti, which will run and manage the Respondent No.9-Jindal Adarsh Gramya Bharti Higher Secondary School, Kirodimal Nagar, Tahsil and District Raigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent No.9-School).

¶25

It is alleged by the petitioner-Samiti that the Respondent No.9-School is being run and managed by its Samiti since 1991, however, the process for

¶26

3 / 9

¶27

change of name of the Samiti and renewal of its recognition, has been initiated by the Respondent No.7-Mandal by virtue of the order impugned, dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) by constituting a Sub-Committee for the said purpose, irrespective of the fact that on an earlier occasion, the application, as was made by the Respondent No.9-School on 06.06.2019 (Annexure P-7) for change of name of Samiti for running and managing its School, has already been rejected by the Respondent No.7-Mandal, vide its order dated 29.08.2020 (Annexure P-10), while upholding the objection (Annexure P-8) made by the petitioner-Samiti on 07.08.2019. It is, therefore, contended by Shri Anand Dadariya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Samiti that the initiation of process for re-consideration of change of the name of Samiti to run and manage the said Respondent No.9-School and, renewal of its recognition afresh, is apparently contrary to law, particularly, when the said order dated 29.08.2020 (Annexure P-10) rejecting the application made by the Respondent No.9-School has already attained its finality by efflux of time. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Patel Narshi Thakershi and others versus Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, reported in 1971 (3) SCC 844.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petition as framed is pre-mature as by virtue of the order impugned, the Sub-Committee consisting of three members alone, has been constituted by the Respondent No.7-Mandal awaiting its report for taking a final decision, therefore, in absence of cause of action, the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. In support, reliance has been placed upon the

¶29

4 / 9

¶30

decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Orissa and others vs. MESCO Steels Limited and another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 340.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers annexed with the petition as well as the Returns filed by the Respondents along with their rejoinders.

¶32

From perusal of the record, it appears that on 23.06.2021, an application (Annexure R-7/5) for Annual Renewal of the recognition of the School was made by Respondent No.9-School for the Academic Session 2021-2022, wherein, the change of circumstances was brought to the notice of the Respondent No.7-Mandal regarding the registration of Respondent No.8-Adarsh Bharti Sikshan Samiti, Kirodimal Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent No.8-Samiti”) as its registration, made on 05.06.2018 (Annexure R-8/5) by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Bilaspur, was questioned by the petitioner-Samiti in an appeal before the Registrar, Firms and Societies, who in turn, has rejected the same vide its order (Annexure R-7/4) dated 24.05.2021, while affirming the registration of the said Respondent No.8-Samiti and it was, thus, informed by virtue of the said application (Annexure R-7/5) that the Respondent No.8-Samiti is a duly registered society. It appears further that in response to the said application (Annexure R-7/5) dated 23.06.2021, the Respondent No.7-Mandal, vide its letter dated 11.08.2021 (Annexure R-7/6=Annexure P-11) had directed the Respondent No.9-School to submit all the relevant documents for annual renewal of its institution/School, while keeping in view the change in circumstances. A copy of the said letter (Annexure R-7/6=Annexure P-11)

¶33

5 / 9

¶34

was supplied to the petitioner-Samiti as well. It appears further that the Respondent No.9-School vide its letter dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure R-7/7) has submitted the relevant documents, while disclosing the fact that the Respondent No.8-Samiti was in actual control over its school right from its inception, but, since, it was not registered on an earlier occasion, therefore, the petitioner-Samiti had granted affiliation to the said Samiti in exchange of an affiliation fee per student. The petitioner-Samiti vide its letter dated 29.09.2021 (Annexure P-12) has submitted its relevant documents before the Respondent No.7-Mandal, in response to the said letter dated 11.08.2021.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid responses, it appears that the petitioner-Samiti as well as the Respondent No.8-Samiti, both, are claiming to have their control over the Respondent No.9-School and, it appears that after considering their rival claims over the management of the Respondent No.9School, the order impugned, dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) has been passed by the Respondent No.7-Mandal, constituting a Sub-Committee for submission of its report in order to ascertain the actual control over the Respondent No.9-School. No order till date has, thus, been passed, as the order in this regard could be passed by the Respondent No.7-Mandal only after consideration of the report of the said Sub-Committee consisting of three members, which is yet to be submitted.

¶36

What is, therefore, reflected from a bare perusal of the order impugned that a Sub-Committee consisting of three members has been constituted in order to ascertain the fact regarding the actual control over the Respondent No.9-School. The Committee, so constituted has to examine the rival claims of the petitioner-Samiti, as well as, the Respondent No.8-Samiti and, to

¶37

6 / 9

¶38

submit its report thereafter. No order has been passed by the Respondent No.7-Mandal, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that any kind of cause of action has arisen. However, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-Samiti, mainly, on the ground that on an earlier occasion, an application (Annexure P-7) dated 06.06.2019 made by the Respondent No.9School for change of name of the Samiti for its running and managing was rejected by the Respondent No.7-Mandal vide order dated 29.08.2020 (Annexure P-10), based upon the inspection report submitted by its two Members Committee, namely, Jayram Mishra and Suresh Prasad Gupta. It is to be noted here at this juncture that these two members are also the members of the Sub-Committee along with the Secretary of the Mandal, constituted vide order impugned dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure P-1).

¶39

It is, thus, evident that in order to examine the case of the Respondent No.9-School, a High Level Committee consisting of three members has been constituted. Therefore, it cannot be said that the alleged Sub-Committee has been constituted by the Respondent No.7-Mandal for reviewing its own order, as was passed earlier on 29.08.2020 (Annexure P-10), while rejecting the application (Annexure P-7) made by the Respondent No.9-School for change of name of the Samiti for running and managing of its School. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the said matter of Patel Narshi Thakershi (supra), as has been relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Samiti, because the same has been laid down entirely on different footing.

¶40

It is to be seen further that in response to the letter dated 11.08.2021 (Annexure R-7/6=Annexure P-11), it has not been stated by the petitioner-

¶41

7 / 9

¶42

Samiti vide its letter (Annexure P-12) dated 29.09.2021 that since the application of similar nature was rejected by the Respondent No.7-Mandal, vide order dated 29.08.2020 (Annexure P-10), therefore, the alleged application (Annexure R-7/5) dated 23.06.2021 as was made by the Respondent No.9-School for the change of name of the Samiti and for its recognition afresh, would not be maintainable.

¶43

It is to be seen further that after constitution of the Sub-Committee vide order impugned dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure P-1), a notice dated 21.10.2021 was issued to the petitioner-Samiti, as well as, the Respondent No.8-Samiti, so as to order with regard to actual control over the Respondent No.9-School could be passed after examining the report of the Sub-Committee. However, instead of replying to it, the instant petition has been filed by the petitionerSamiti, merely, on the presumption and, that too even in absence of the cause of action for filing of such a petition. At this juncture, certain principles laid down by the Supreme Court are to be seen. In the matter of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and another, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254, it was held by the Supreme Court in this regard at para-6, which reads as under:-

¶44

Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily.

¶45

Likewise in the matter of Alchemist Ltd. and another vs. State Bank

¶46

of Sikkim and others, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 335, wherein it was

¶47

8 / 9

¶48

observed by the Supreme Court at Para-22, which is relevant for the purpose, reads as under :-

¶49

22. “ For every action, there has to be a cause of action. If there is no cause of action, the plaint or petition has to be dismissed.”

¶50

In the matter of State of Orissa and others vs. MESCO Steels Limited and another (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it appears that a prayer was made in the writ petition filed by the respondent-Company, i.e. MESCO Steel Ltd., for quashing of the recommendation made by the Director of Mines proposing to reduce the lease area granted to the said Company, but, since the final order on the basis of the said recommendation was not made, therefore, the said petition was held to be pre-matured. The relevant observations made at paragraphs 19 & 20 read as under :-

¶51

19. “ It is obvious from a conjoint reading of the letter dated 12.01.2006 and communication dated 19.09.2006 sent by the Director of Mines in response thereto that a final decision on the subject had yet to be taken by the Government, no matter the Government may have provisionally decided to follow the line of action indicated in its communication dated 12.01.2006 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Department of Steel and Mines. It is noteworthy that there was no challenge to the communication dated 12.01.2006 before the High Court nor was any material placed before us to suggest that any final decision was ever taken by the Government on the question of deduction of the area granted in favour of the respondent so as to render the process of issue of show cause notice for hearing the respondent-Company an exercise in futility.

¶52

20. On the contrary, the issue of the show-cause notice setting out the reasons that impelled the Government to claim resumption of a part of the proposed lease area from the

¶53

9 / 9

¶54

respondent-Company clearly suggested that the entire process leading up to the issue of the show-cause notice was tentative and no final decision on the subject had been taken at any level. It is only after the Government provisionally decided to resume the area in part or full that a show-cause notice could have been issued. To put the matter beyond any pale of controversy, Mr. Lalit made an unequivocal statement at the Bar on behalf of the State Government that no final decision regarding resumption of any part of the lease area has been taken by the State Government so far and all that had transpired till date must necessarily be taken as provisional. Such being the case the High Court was in error in proceeding on an assumption that a final decision had been taken and in quashing what was no more than an inter-departmental communication constituting at best a step in the process of taking a final decision by the Government. The writ petition in that view was pre-mature and ought to have been disposed of as such.” ……….…….

¶55

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-referred matters and, particularly, when only a Sub-Committee consisting of three members has been constituted to take a final decision in order to ascertain the actual control over the Respondent No.9-School, therefore, in absence of the cause of action, the petition being pre-mature deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶56

No order as to costs.

¶57

SD/(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

¶58

Tumane

Adarsh Gramya Bharti Sikshan Samiti Tamnar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adarsh Gramya Bharti Sikshan Samiti Tamnar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakuntala Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Ila Diwan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

A.c.c.ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kamolina Raj Vs Shri Amit Jeevan

Smt. Teeka Bai Khunte Vs State Of Chhattisgarh