Dismissed

Association of Jharkhand Unaid v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Jan 2023WPC/5822/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-enforcement of certain sections of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and sought mandatory directions to frame rules. The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn the matter during arguments.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner.

Association of Jharkhand Unaid Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (C) No. 5822 of 2011

¶2

Association of Jharkhand Unaided Private Educational Institutions, Sakshi Jamshedpur through its Secretary APR Nair ----- Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand

¶4

The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶5

The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶6

The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi ----Respondent

¶7

¶8

CORAM: Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. P.A.S. Pati, G.A-II

¶11

¶12

05 / 05.01.2023 Writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer.

¶13

a. For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to hold and declare the rules framed under section 38 of the provisions required to carry out the purpose and objective of the Act under section 2, 12(2) and Section 38 of the Act has not been incorporated in the rules and in absence of such mandatory provisions the Act itself is enforceable and unexecutable as against the unaided private schools falling under the definition of Section 2 N (iv) of the Act.

¶14

b. For appropriate direction commanding upon the respondents to incorporate the provisions in the rules in the different criteria prescribed under section 38 of the Act so as to effective and proper implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the Act without which the act itself is unenforceable and would only remain in the statute book and also to hold and declare that till such time the rules are amended and the mandatory provisions are incorporated in the rules, implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the Act without which the act itself is unenforceable and would only remain in the statute book and also to hold and declare that till such time the rules are amended and the mandatory provisions are incorporated in the rules, the Act i.e. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 may not be enforced upon the petitioner and its member.

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel for the State submits that the prayer made in the writ petition are in the nature of directing the Executive to frame rules which is largely in the domain of the Executive.

¶17

However, after some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶18

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, A.C.J)

¶19

(Deepak Roshan, J)

¶20

Ranjeet/

Association of Jharkhand Unaid v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Association of Jharkhand Unaid v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Global Construction through Its Proprietor Mukesh Tripathi Vs Union of India through Its Pr Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax

Ms Om Prakash Kashyap through Its Proprietor Om Prakash Kashyap Vs the Union of India through the Central Board of Indrect Taxes and Customs

Ms Sai Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. Through Its One Of Directors Sri Gagan Agarwal Vs Comercial Taxes

Carlsberg India Private Limited through Its Representative Shri Pradyumna Maheshawari Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary and Commissioner of Excise Deptt of Excise and Prohibition

Sri Raj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Lingraj Consultants Private Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Santosh Kumar Lal Vs the Goods and Services Tax Network through Its Chairman