1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
[A] The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Secretary, Education Department dated 25.4.2007, and be further pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board, passed on 21.11.1995 and restoring the school to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.
[B] Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the order passed by the Secretary, Education Department, dated 25.4.2007 and be further pleased to stay the order passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board dated 21.11.1995 in the interest of justice.
[C] xxx”
2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner is a Public Trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. The petitioner is running a school namely Sarvangi Vikas Vidhyalaya at Kapoda and one Secondary school namely Jagruti Vidhya Mandir at Raheda. The petitioner trust sent a proposal to Gujarat Secondary Board to shift the Jagruit Vidya Mandir from Raheda to Rudardi. However, no positive reply was received and therefore, respondent No.4, herein preferred S.C.A. No. 6727 of 1993 before this Court praying to give permission to transfer the school and also to allow to close down the school at Raheda. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 24.8.1994 with a direction to make representation to the Board. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court the parties were heard by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board. By order dated 13.3.1995, the Board rejected the proposal of the petitioner to permit it to shift Jagruti Vidya Mandir from Raheda to Rudardi. The Managing Committee of the Board recommended the General Body of the Board to remove the name of the school from the Register maintained under the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act.
2.1. Against the said action the petitioner filed S.C.A. No.3022 of 1995 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 20.4.1995 directed the respondents that if the General Body of the Board accepts the recommendation of the Executive Committee, the Board can deregister the school only after following the procedure as per Section 31(9) of the Act. Vide order dated 26.5.1995 the respondent-Board de-registered the name of the petitioner school .
2.2. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner trust filed S.C.A. No. 4931 of 1995 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 26.06.1995 quashed and set aside the order dated 26.5.1995 passed by the respondent Board and matter remitted to the Board for deciding the matter afresh and on merits. The respondent Board vide order dated 21.11.1995 again de-registered the name of the petitioner school. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed S.C.A. No. 1685 of 1995. This Court vide order dated 8.3.1999 dismissed the said petition and directed the respondents to decide the appeal of the petitioner trust within a period of two months. On 17.4.1999 one Resolution bearing No.449 of 1999 passed by the Executive Committee of the Gujarat Secondary Board, whereby the Board has resolved to transfer the management of Petitioner school from Raheda to petitioner trust Raheda Vikash Mandal, respondent No.4 herein.
2.3. Against the said Resolution the petitioner trust filed S.C.A. No.3771 of 1999 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 23.2.2007 directed the Secretary of the Board to hear and disposed of the appeal of the petitioner. The Secretary, vide order dated 25.4.2007, dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the upon inspection the school was found to be closed and place of the school was also changed without permission. This Court vide order dated 23.11.2009 dismissed the S.C.A. No.3771 of 1999. Against the same, the petitioner-trust filed L.P.A before this Court. The same was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. Hence, this petition.
3. Mr. Shelat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cancellation of the registration of the petitioner school is contrary to directions issued by this Court in Special Civil Application No.3022 of 1995, on 20th April, 1995, whereby this Court directed the respondents that if the general body of the Board accepts the recommendation of the executive committee, the Board can de-register the school only after following the procedure as per Section 31(9) of the Act.
4. He further contended that the order dated 21.11.1995 passed by the respondent Board cancelling the registration of the petitioner School on the ground that the school was closed and place of the school was changed is illegal and improper.
5. He further contended that the the respondent Secretary also committed an error in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 25.4.2007 on the same ground. He contended that the respondents have not followed the procedure as contemplated u/s 31(9) of the Act while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner as per the direction issued by this court. He therefore, submitted that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. The respondent-authority took the decision of cancelling the registration of the petitioner-school since it was found that the petitioner had committed clear breach of the relevant rules, which governs the administration of the School. It appears from the record that when the respondent authority has carried out the physical inspection of the petitioner-school, it was found that no students were present in class (8) eight to (10) ten. It was also found that the petitioner has shifted its premises from Raheda to Rudardi. The petitioner has shifted the premises alongwith students to the premises at Rudardi without taking prior permission of the competent authority, which is mandatory under the relevant rules. Therefore, the action of the petitioner- school was found to be in clear breach of the Rules.
7. Apart from that, it may be noted that the respondent- Board by Resolution bearing No.449 of 1999 dated 17.4.1999, had transferred the management of the school to Raheda Vikash Mandal, respondent no.4 herein. However, the said decision has not challenged by the petitioner and instead the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents of de-registering its recommendation. The main cause of action, in my opinion is the Notification of the year 1999 by which the management of the school had transferred. The petitioner ought to have challenged the said Notification at the relevant time. However, the same has not been done and now by way of present petition the petitioner has sought to challenge the action of de-registering the school of the petitioner- school. In my opinion the action of the respondents is inconsonance with the relevant rules, since, evidently the petitioner was found to be in clear breach of the relevant rules, inasmuch as the school premises along with the students were shifted to some other place without being prior permission of the competent authority. The act of the petitioner is nothing but an act to ride in a dead horse.
8. It is true that the respondents had not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act before taking the action. However, in my view, the same would not have much relevance on the facts present case, since, the decision has been taken as a consequence of the action of the petitioner to shift the premises along with the students without prior permission of the competent authority. However, it also appears that subsequently the respondents have followed the the relevant rules, which is alleged to have been not followed by the respondents, at the relevant point of time.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is dismissed with cost, which is quantified at Rs.5000/- for each of the respondents.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.]
pawan