Independent Schools` Association Chandigarh (regd. ) vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1476

A. M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA, J. B. PARDIWALA
Independent Schools` Association Chandigarh (regd. ) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Avi Singh, Advocate, Mr. Manohar Pratap, Advocate, Mr. Karan Dhalla, Advocate, Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Advocate, Mr. Ritwiz Rishabh, Advocate, Mr. Harish Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Raghvendra S. Srivastva, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Jayant K. Sud, ASG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Mr. S. K. Singhania, Advocate, Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Varun Chugh, Advocate, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate, Mr. Kartik Jasra, Advocate, Mr. Randeep Sachdeva, Advocate, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocate, Mr. Adit Khorana, Advocate, Ms. Deepa Dutta, Advocate, Ms. Shreya Jain, Advocate, Mr. S. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Advocate, Ms. Preeti Rani, Advocate, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocate, Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Advocate, Mr. Sumeir Anuja, Advocate, Mr. Jai Surya Jain, Advocate, Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Samota, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Vajpayee, Advocate, Mr. Shubham Bhalla, Advocate, For the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 28.05.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition Nos.7706/2020 (O&M) and 7761/2020(O&M) respectively.

3. The appellants had assailed the Notification dated 13.04.2018 issued by the appropriate authority in exercise of powers under Section 87 of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, (for short, 'the 1966 Act'), by way of writ petition(s) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The High Court has dismissed the said writ petition(s) opining that the appropriate authority was competent to issue such Government Order/Notification.

5. Before this Court, the limited challenge is to Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso, which have been inserted in terms of the impugned Order/Notification by way of paragraph 6 thereof. Paragraph 6 of the impugned Order/Notification reads thus:

"6. In section 5, after this proviso shall be inserted, namely:-

"Provided further that every Unaided Educational Institution shall-

(a) upload income, expenditure account and balance sheet on its website;

(b) not charge any kind of cost from the parents;

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 1476

A. M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA, J. B. PARDIWALAIndependent Schools` Association Chandigarh (regd. ) – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

A. M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA, J. B. PARDIWALA
Independent Schools` Association Chandigarh (regd. ) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent