Dismissed

Tejpal Sharma v. Chander Shekher

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Nov 2013COCP/3013/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a contempt petition filed against a court order in a PIL challenging the running of a school. The court observed that action was taken against the school and dismissed the petition as the petitioner, having other remedies, had filed it to stop the school's operation for personal grievance.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dismissed as the petitioner had other alternative remedies available to enforce personal legal rights.

Tejpal Sharma Vs Chander Shekher — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

COCP No. 3013 of 2013

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH.

¶5

COCP No. 3013 of 2013

¶6

Date of Decision: November 15, 2013

Tejpal Sharma

…..Petitioner

Vs.

Chander Shekher

…..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶13

-.-

¶14

Present:Mr.Suryakant Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

-.-

¶16

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶17

Petitioner posing himself to be a public spirited man filed Public Interest Litigation against Hari Ram Memorial Public School, Village Mandkol, Tehsil and District Palwal alleging that school was being run in a residential premises in 3/4 rooms, there being no facility of toilet. It was alleged that there is no playground in the school and that the noise pollution disturbed the nearby area. The petitioner was disturbed by the running of the school.

¶18

Gupta Sanjay 2013.11.18 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

COCP No. 3013 of 2013

¶20

[2]

¶21

When notice was issued to the respondent, the Court was apprised of the fact that necessary action will be taken against the persons running the School. A copy of the written statement filed by District Education Officer, Palwal, in the writ petition has been appended as annexure P-1. The Court was informed that necessary action will be taken against the School after providing proper opportunity of hearing and issuing notice to the School authorities.

¶22

Petitioner filed a contempt petition No. 1464 of 2011 alleging that the order passed by the Court had been violated.

¶23

The District Education Officer, Palwal, submitted a report on November 30, 2011 disclosing the discrepancies in the running of the School. It was informed by way of affidavit by the District Education Officer that the Management of the School had been granted opportunity of hearing and the recognition of the School had been withdrawn. A copy of the order passed by the District Education Officer withdrawing the recognition for the academic Session 2012 has been placed on record as annexure P-3.

¶24

Now the grievance of the petitioner in the present contempt petition is that the school had filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the statutory authority of the District Education Officer to withdraw recognition on the ground that it is only the Director who has got an authority to cancel the recognition. The grievance of the petitioner now is that the recognition of the School has not been withdrawn by an

¶25

Gupta Sanjay 2013.11.18 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶26

COCP No. 3013 of 2013

¶27

[3]

¶28

appropriate authority with an objective to commit the breach of the undertaking given in the Court.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that the necessary steps as per the undertaking given in the Court to stop the irregularities of the above said School have been taken. The school at the same time has got a right to resist the de-recognition in case it has not been done in accordance with law. It appears that the contempt proceedings are being initiated to achieve the objective of stopping the running of School in the close vicinity of the residence of the petitioner. The petitioner has got other alternative remedies for implementation of the legal rights.

¶30

In view of petitioner having other alterative remedies available to him to enforce his personal legal rights, this petition is dismissed.

¶31

November 15, 2013 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

¶32

Gupta Sanjay 2013.11.18 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Tejpal Sharma v. Chander Shekher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejpal Sharma v. Chander Shekher

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

Jarnail Singh Vs Amarjit Singh Dullet

Vipan Kumar Puri Vs S.K. Goyal

Malkiat Singh Josan Vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh Vs Nitin Yadav

Jagir Singh Vs Chander Parkash

Darshan Singh Vs a Venu Prasad & Ors.