In this petition under Article-226 of Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th July 1999 passed by the State Government rejecting the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 21/01/1999 passed by the Competent Authority cancelling the recognition which was granted in favour of the petitioner-Institution for running a Hostel under the Grant in Aid Rules.
2.Pursuant to the inspection made by the squad officer of the respondent-Department on 21/07/1998, notice dated 16/09/1990 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the recognition should not be cancelled as the irregularities mentioned in the notice were detected at the time of inspection. The petitioner submitted his reply on 06/10/1998 and, thereafter, another squad inspection was carried out by the District Social Welfare Officer on 23/11/1998. At that time also, many irregularities were noticed and the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing on 04/01/1999. The Director passed the impugned order dated 21/01/1999 ( Annexure-D ) cancelling the recognition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Government. After hearing the petitioner's representative, the State Government dismissed the appeal by the impugned order dated 19/07/1999 (Annexure-F). It is against the aforesaid order that the present petition is filed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to challenge the findings given by the authorities and in the alternative submitted that in a similar case the Director had passed order dated 04/01/1999 only imposing penalty of grant cut of 10% of the maintenance grant and, therefore, the petitioner is meted out discriminatory treatment.
4.As far as the first challenge is concerned, in a petition under Art-226 of the Constitution, the Court would not reappreciate the material on record and interfere with the concurrent findings given by both the authorities that the petitioner had committed serious irregularities. It is pertinent to note that earlier in the Year-1997 also the authority had detected irregularities committed by the petitioner-Institution, but the petitioner was given one opportunity and was allowed to continue to run the hostel with the grant-in-aid from the Government. This was the second occasion (when the squad officer inspected the Hostel on 01/07/1998) that serious irregularities were noticed. Thereafter, when the inspection was carried out by the District Social Welfare Officer on 23/11/1998, it was found that as against 20 students enrolled with the petitioner-Institution, only one student was present and when asked the solitary student stated that four other student had gone for tution and he had no idea about any other student. Various other short-comings were noticed such as inadequate premises, absence of resident rector non-availibility of storeroom, lavatory and bathroom; not providing breakfast to the students. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies, no fault can be found with the decision of the respondnet-Authorities cancelling the recognition and grant to the petitioner-Institution.
5.As regards the contention that the petitioner has been given discretionary treatment, the same is misconceived. In the first place, the order dated 21/01/1999 ( Annexure-G ) was with reference to a girls' hostel. Secondly, the irregularities noticed with respect to the said institution cannot be said to be serious because as against 27 girl students enrolled there were only 21 girl students present at the time of inspection on 23/11/1998. Thirdly, it is not the petitioner's case that any previous warning of the nature given to the petitioner was given with regard to the said girls' hostel.
6.In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in this petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ( M. S. Shah,J.) (vijay)