Allowed

Japinder Singh v. Union of India

Uttarakhand HC3 Jul 2020WPPIL/112/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench review application was allowed to correct an observation erroneously including all private schools under a government order applicable only to private day and boarding schools. A modification application filed by a non-party was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The review application (MCC 292 of 2020) is allowed to set aside the erroneous interpretation of the government order's scope; the modification application is disposed off.

Japinder Singh Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

WPPIL No.112 of 2020

¶2

Hon’ble Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. Hon’ble R. C. Khulbe, J.

¶3

Shri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶4

Shri S.S. Chauhan, learned deputy advocate general for the State.

¶5

Km. Gurbani Singh, learned counsel for the applicant in review application (MCC 292 of 2020).

¶6

Shri T.A. Khan, learned senior counsel for the applicant in modification application (MCC No.379 of 2020).

¶7

Shri Kanwaljit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant in intervention application (CLMA 7089 of 2020).

¶8

Review application (MCC 292 of 2020)

¶9

This is an application seeking to review the order dated 03.07.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the review applicant contends that the Division Bench relied on the translated copy of the government order dated 22.06.2020, and has wrongly come to the conclusion with regard to the category of schools; that the government order clearly indicates that the same is applicable only to private day schools and private day boarding schools; since the writ petition has been dismissed with certain directions, the error committed by the learned Division Bench is to the extent of mentioning that the government order is applicable to private schools etc.

¶11

The same is not disputed either by the petitioner or by the respondents.

¶12

However, the applicant, who has filed the intervention application (CLMA No.7089 of 2020), has addressed his arguments. We have heard him also.

¶13

On considering the contentions, we are of the view that the review application requires to be allowed.

¶14

We have considered the government order. Undisputedly and without contest, it refers to private day schools and private day boarding schools. The writ petition has been dismissed with certain directions. The directions are not challenged by anyone. The only error committed is that the government order was interpreted to include private schools etc. Therefore, to that extent, the observations made by the Division Bench are set aside. It is reiterated that the government order dated 22.06.2020 shall be applicable only to the private day schools and private day boarding schools. The other directions issued by the Division Bench are sustained.

¶15

For all these reasons, the review application (MCC 292/2020) is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶16

Modification application (MCC 379/2020)

¶17

This application has been moved seeking to modify the order dated 03.07.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶18

The applicants are not parties to the order. Therefore, prima facie, we are of the view that since they are not parties, the said order cannot be applicable to them. However, the applicant’s counsel submits that the

¶19

government order affects him. If that be so, the applicants are always entitled to file a fresh petition to challenge the government order dated 22.6.2020 in accordance with and in a manner known to law.

¶20

The modification application is disposed off accordingly.

¶21

The remaining applications stand rejected.

¶22

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Ravi Malimath, A.C.J.) 14.09.2020

¶23

B.S./S.S.

Japinder Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Japinder Singh v. Union of India

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

State of Uttarakhand Vs Bhupendra Singh

G.S. Tomar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sonia Beniwal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Navpreet Singh Baath Vs Mitali Baath

Maneesh Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Student Federation of India Vs State of Uttarakhand