Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36340 of 2018 Petitioner :- Madrasa Islamia Misbahul Uloom Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Prasad Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard counsel for the parties. With their consent, the instant writ petition is being decided finally, without inviting a formal counter affidavit.
The petitioner has called into question an order dated 19.9.2018 passed by respondent No. 4 - Block Education Officer, Soraon, Allahabad directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1 lakh in Government Treasury failing which a First Information Report would be lodged against it.
The petitioner is a Madarsa. An order was passed against it on 19.6.2018 directing it to forthwith close down the Institution run by it, as it does not have approval under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 Thereafter, the impugned order was passed holding that the petitioner has not closed down the Institution in spite of order dated 19.6.2018 and consequently, it is liable to penalty of Rs. 1 lakh as per provisions of the said Act.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Institution was imparting basic education and also religious instructions. The specific case of the petitioner is that after passing of order dated 19.6.2018, it had stopped imparting primary education, but is only imparting religious education. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the imposition of fine is wholly illegal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order was passed without any show cause notice to the petitioner.
Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 points out that the petitioner had already applied for recognition under the Right of Children to Fee and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 before respondent No. 5 and the said application is still pending. He further submitted that there is no evidence that the petitioner Institution is now imparting education in religion and not primary education. He further states that the respondent No. 5 would be competent to examine the said aspect.
In the opinion of the Court, the issue as to whether the petitioner Institution has stopped imparting primary education, has to be examined by the authorities, being a question of fact. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file representation before respondent No. 5 along with certified copy of this order within one week from today, and in which event, the respondent No. 5 shall decide the same in accordance with law, within next three weeks. Till decision is taken by respondent No. 5, further action in pursuance of the impugned order shall remain in abeyance.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 31.10.2018 AM/-