Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41011 of 2018 Petitioner :- C/M A K National Inter College And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
By the order impugned dated 19.11.2018 the recognition to the petitioner institution as a High School under the Intermediate Education Act has been recalled. The order impugned dated 19.11.2018 records that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.07.2017. The petitioner submitted a reply in response to the show cause notice refuting the charges laid out therein. A physical inspection was caused to be conducted on 31.07.2017 and a report was submitted in that regard.
The order dated 19.11.2018 also placed reliance on recommendation made by the Committee for recognition of the Board wherein a recommendation to withdraw of recognition of the petitioner institution was duly approved by the Director of Intermediate Education and Chairman of the Board of Intermediate Education.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned has travelled beyond the show cause notice by relying on documents which were not mentioned in the show cause notice. The said documents were never served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was never afforded an opportunity to refute the aforesaid documents and enquiry report which were adverse to the petitioner and relied upon while passing the order impugned. The respondent authority has violated the principles of natural justice.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
A perusal of the show cause notice dated 18.07.2017 and the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 references various documents not mentioned in the show cause notice. This clearly attests the fact that reliance has been placed in the order impugned on various enquiry reports and documents which were not mentioned in the show cause notice.
Further the reply submitted by the petitioner has also not been considered. The order also records that the petitioner had not submitted reply to the show cause notice dated 18.07.2017. However, in the same breath the order records that in the hearing held on 26.09.2017 the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation.
The representation has been extracted but it has not been considered.
Learned Standing Counsel could not place anything from the record to demonstrate that the documents referenced in the impugned order and relied upon while withdrawing recognition of the petitioner institution were served upon the petitioner. He could not contest the fact that the reply of the petitioner has not been considered.
The impugned order was passed with a premeditated mind set following the recommendation of the Committee for recognition of the institutions under the Intermediate Education Act. There is no independent application of mind on the said report.
Most importantly the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.07.2018. However, as per the recital in the impugned order a physical inspection was to be conducted on 31.07.2018. The order thus self destructs, as it places reliance on material in the nature of an enquiry report submitted pursuant to a physical inspection of the institution on 31.07.2018, while the show cause notice was issued on 18.07.2018.
The order cannot stand. The order dated 19.11.2018 is arbitrary and illegal. The order dated 19.11.2018 is quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent no. 1. A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent no. 1 to execute the following directions;
(i) The respondent no. 1 shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioner institution indicating the reasons on which the recognition granted to the institution is proposed to be withdrawn.
(ii) Any adverse material which is proposed to be relied upon petitioner institution shall be provided to the petitioner institution. The petitioner institution shall be given an opportunity to tender its defence and reply to such notice.
(iii) The respondent no. 1 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner institution. The respondent no. 1 shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the defence of the petitioner and the material in the record, deciding the issue of withdrawal of recognition of the petitioner institution.
(iv) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Pravin