Dismissed¶22

Basudev Bhatta v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Apr 2024WP(C)/8808/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTE Act 2009 25% reservation for weaker sections/disadvantaged groups in private schools; DAV Public School Chandrasekharpur Bhubaneswar; communication dated 08.11.2011 Department of School & Mass Education; open-category random selection, no parental-qualification profiling, no test/interview; stale/frivolous PIL filed after nearly 13 years; malicious PIL, ulterior motive, abuse of process of Court; cost Rs.10,000/- payable to Orissa High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks; writ petition dismissed; W.P.(C) No. 8808 of 2024; Orissa High Court order dated 18.04.2024.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioner; the writ petition was dismissed with a punitive cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the petitioner, payable within four weeks into the account of the Orissa High Court Legal Services Committee. ¶22

Basudev Bhatta Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Department of School & Mass Education's communication dated 08.11.2011 permitting DAV Public School to fill the 25% seats earmarked for weaker-section/disadvantaged-group children with open-category students is contrary to the policy emerging from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. +1 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

A writ petition filed nearly 13 years after a communication confined to the particular academic session 2011-12, in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, is malicious, filed with ulterior motive, and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶20

Key takeaways

To discourage the practice of filing frivolous PILs, the Court imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner, payable within four weeks into the account of the Orissa High Court Legal Services Committee, while dismissing the writ petition.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No. 8808 of 2024, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Order No. 01 dated 18.04.2024 (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ & M.S. Raman, J): The petitioner contested the communication dated 08.11.2011 of the Additional Secretary, Department of School & Mass Education, permitting DAV Public School, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, whose 25% seats earmarked for weaker-section/disadvantaged-group children lay unfilled in session 2011-12, to fill those seats with open-category students chosen on random basis without profiling, tests or interviews, contending this ran contrary to the policy under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; counsel further claimed subsequent admissions against the 25% seats violated norms but, on the Court's queries, could produce no later Departmental permissions. Finding the petition, filed nearly 13 years after a communication confined to session 2011-12, to be a malicious PIL with ulterior motive amounting to abuse of the Court's process, the Bench dismissed it and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) on the petitioner, payable within four weeks to the Orissa High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 8808 of 2024

¶3

Basudev Bhatta

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Choudhury, Advocate -versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

18.04.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶16

It is the petitioner’s case that 25% of seats in the privately managed schools are earmarked for the children belonging to weaker sections/disadvantaged groups. The petitioner has brought on record a communication dated 08.11.2011 made by the Additional Secretary to the Govt., Department of School & Mass Education addressed to the Principal, DAV Public School, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar responding to a letter dated 08.09.2011 of the Principal of the said School. It transpires from the said communication that the Principal of the said School had informed the Additional Secretary that the seats meant for the children belonging to the weaker section/disadvantaged group could not be filled up due to non-receipt of the applications during 201112. Responding to the said request, the Department of School and

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Mass Education had permitted the School to fill up those seats by students of open category on the condition that they were selected on random basis and that there would be no profiling of the child based on parental educational qualification, and further, there would be no test and interviews for any child/parent.

¶19

Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the said communication is contrary to the policy emerging from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to fill up 25% of seats in the private schools by the children belonging to weaker section/disadvantaged group. He submits that subsequent to the said communication dated 08.11.2011; the School has admitted students against said 25% of seats violating the norms. In response to the queries made by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed his inability to produce subsequent communications issued by the Department permitting the School to admit students of open category.

¶20

The very fact that this writ petition has been filed nearly 13 years after the said communication, which was made by the Department of School & Mass Education to the DAV Public School confined to that particular academic session of 2011-12 goes to suggest that this writ petition filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), is malicious filed with ulterior motive and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. In order to discourage practice of filing such frivolous PIL, we consider it apt to impose cost on the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, we, while

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

dismissing the writ petition, impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) on the petitioner to be paid by him within four weeks from today in the account of the Orissa High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶23

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

¶24

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶25

Aswini

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTA CK Date: 25-Apr-2024 14:08:46

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Basudev Bhatta v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basudev Bhatta v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khirod Chandra Mallick Vs Subham Saxsena, Collector, Sambalpur

Manu Majhi Vs Alok Kar,Addl. Secy. to Govt.,W.R. Dept.,Odisha

Anama Patel Vs Alok Kar,Addl. Secy. to Govt.,W.R. Dept.,Odisha

Suresh Kumar Rout Vs Sanjay Kumar Singh, I.A.S.

Pramodini Dash Vs G. Mathi Vathanan, I.A.S.

State of Odisha Vs Laxmikanta Panda