(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We have heard learned advocate Mr.Chirag B.Patel for the appellants, learned AGP for the respondent No.1-State and learned advocate Mr.A.D.Oza for the respondent No.2 - Board.
2. The respondent - authority passed an order for closing down Classes VIII to X which were run by the appellants on the ground that there is lesser number of students found at the time of inspection. During the pendency of the proceedings, the teachers who were teaching the students have been absorbed in another institution and, therefore, this appeal become infrucutuous.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Chirag Patel for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India vs. M. Hanumaiah and others as reported in (2008) 1 SCC 770 particularly paras 10 and 20. Relying upon the said decision, he has urged that, even the infructuous matters are required to be decided by the High Court.
4. We have gone through the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In para 20 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"On hearing Mr.Trivedi, counsel for the appellant, and on a careful consideration of the relevant provisions of law and the decisions cited before us, we have no hesitation in accepting the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. We accordingly answer the question (framed in the beginning of the judgment) in the negative and hold and find that on receipt of a requisition in writing from Reserve Bank of India, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is statutorily bound to issue the order of supersession of the Committee of Management of Cooperative Bank. At that stage the affected bank/its Managing Committee has no right of hearing or to raise any objections."
5. We do not find that any such view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision. The Hon'ble Apex Court has not held that, even infructuous matters the High Court should decide it. On the contrary, consistent view of the Hon'ble Apex Court had been that merely academic matters should not be decided unless the cause survives. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the closure of the classes. We are not in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. In our opinion, the tribunal was fully justified by giving direction to the District Education Officer for closing classes of Standards VIII to X, as during the inspection made by the DEO, there were lesser number of students found in the said classes.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merits in the appeal. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.) (A.J.DESAI, J.) syed/ Top