Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the opposite party No.1 as well as Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the opposite party No.2 whereby the petitioner-institutioin has been de-recognized and further direction has been given that the students of the petitioner-institute be admitted in the nearby schools.
Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner No.1 Institution is a private unaided Institution run and managed by Sai Nath Shikshan Sansthan, a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
The petitioner applied for recognition from the opposite party No.2 on a prescribed format along with requisite fee along with necessary no objection certificates and complying with other formalities. A spot inspection was made and conditional recognition was granted to the petitioner-Institution vide order dated 08.08.2019 for three years for running the school from Class-I to Class-V standard. It is alleged that on the basis of a complaint made by a local political leader, the District Magistrate, Bahraich constituted a three Member Committee, who is said to have inspected and submitted a report on the basis of which the recognition of the petitioner-Institution was revoked by means of the order dated 04.09.2019.
The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner by preferring a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.26035 of 2019 (M/S). After hearing the parties, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed and this Court holding that the impugned order dated 04.09.2019 by which the recognition was revoked was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing, hence, the same was set aside. However, liberty was granted to the opposite parties No.2 and 3 to issue a fresh show cause notice and hold an enquiry in accordance with the Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court dated 26.09.2019 is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference.
"Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 04.09.2019 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed and set aside. However, liberty is granted to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner-institution and hold and inquiry in accordance with Rule 16 of the aforesaid Rules of 2016 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then may pass a fresh order.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed. However, it is made clear that the Court has not examined the merits and it has bee decided only on the first question that no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner. The opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are directed that they shall conclude the inquiry expeditiously say within a period of four weeks from the date of the service of the show cause notice on the petitioner."
It is the case of the petitioner that after the order dated 26.09.2019 was passed, again the petitioner was issued with a fresh notice dated 16.10.2019 as well as 24.12.2019 wherein on the same material, which was before the authority concerned, the allegations were raised against the petitioner. It is stated that once this Court by means of the order dated 26.09.2019 had set aside the previous order dated 04.09.2019, it was incumbent upon the authorities to issue a fresh show cause notice and hold a fresh enquiry. It is also stated by the petitioner that while issuing a notice dated 24.12.2019, the petitioner appeared before the opposite party No.2 and had also submitted his reply/explanation along with photographs of the Institution. The petitioner had categorically stated that he complied with the necessary requisites and moreover on 07.01.2020 and 31.01.2020, the petitioner had requested the opposite party no.2 to get an inspection done afresh to ascertain that all the formalities are complete, however, to the surprise of the petitioner neither the inspection was made nor it was informed that the impugned order had already been passed on 30.01.2020 and that too without holding a fresh enquiry in accordance with the Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016 as directed by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2019 and in the aforesaid backdrop, the order dated 30.01.2020 has been passed which is violative of the direction given by this Court, consequently, deserves to be set aside.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court had required the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and 3 to produce the record before this Court.
Today, the record was produced before this Court and upon a specific query made to Shri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and 3 to indicate as to whether any fresh show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and whether a fresh inspection or enquiry was held in term of Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016.
Shri Ghaus Beg has informed that after the order passed by this Court, a notice was issued on 16.10.2019 and 24.11.2020 to the petitioner, however, he candidly submitted that there is no material on record to indicate that any fresh inspection was carried out.
Shri Ghaus Beg also could not dispute that fact that the petitioner had appeared before the opposite parties no.2 and 3 and had submitted that the school be inspected afresh as the petitioner had complied with the requisite formalities.
In view of the aforesaid statement given by the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 on the basis of the record available with him, it is clear that the impugned order dated 30.01.2020 has been passed primarily on the same material, which was available before the opposite party no.2 prior to passing of the order dated 04.09.2019 which was set aside by this Court on 26.09.2019 in Writ Petition No.26035 of 2019 (M/S).
In view of the aforesaid, the question still remains as to whether the issue and the explanation furnished by the petitioner that his Institution complied with the requisite formalities has yet not been ascertained nor verified.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, once the petitioner had already requested to get the school inspected to ascertain for itself regarding the compliances, which has not been done. The core issue whether the school of the petitioner complies with the necessary compliances and bench mark for the infrastructure to be given the recognition, being essentially a question of fact and could only be ascertained with certainty by visiting and inspecting the premises. Admittedly, the inspection has not been done and the opposite parties No.2 and 3 in its order also found that the photographs filed by the petitioner did not clarify the factual position. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was incumbent on the authorities to have inspected the premises before passing the impugned order.
This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order, which has been passed ignoring the aforesaid including the reply of the petitioner as well as the request made by him to inspect the school and ascertain the compliances, hence, the impugned order dated 30.01.2020 cannot be sustained as the same has been passed in utter disregard to the letter and spirit of the order passed by this Court dated 26.09.2019 in Writ Petition No.26035 of 2019 (M/S).
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.01.2020 is set aside and quashed. However, it is provided that the opposite parties No.2 and 3 shall inspect the Institution of the petitioner after giving due notice within 15 days from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the opposite party No.2. After making an inspection in presence of the petitioner, the opposite party No.2 shall pass a fresh speaking order considering the facts and circumstances as well as considering the compliances made by the petitioner as alleged and also considering the reply furnished by the petitioner filed before.
It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the petitioner having made the compliances which shall be determined as per the relevant provisions and guidelines by the Authority concerned after making an inspection within the time mentioned above.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Rakesh/-