Rules framed by the State Government for grant of permission to start secondary schools, which are vague, do not provide for a fair and impartial inquiry, and discriminate between schools based on subjective and arbitrary criteria, are unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade, or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
GRANT-IN-AID CODE - RULES 3(1) AND 3(2) - UNREASONABLE RESTRICTIONS - ARTICLE 19(1)(G) - ARTICLE 14 - ARTICLE 358 - VALIDITY - SOCIETY'S RIGHT TO CONDUCT SCHOOL - CONDITIONS FOR RECOGNITION OF SCHOOLS - GRANT OF PERMISSION TO START SCHOOLS - DISCRIMINATION - EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION.
Fact of the Case:

Three civil applications challenging the validity of certain rules of the Grant-in-Aid Code framed by the State Government for secondary schools. The petitioners, registered societies, sought permission to open secondary schools in their respective villages. Their applications were rejected by the authorities on the ground that the need of the place had been fulfilled by permitting another society to open a school. The petitioners contended that the rules were unreasonable and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Rules 3(1) and 3(2) of the Grant-in-Aid Code, which prescribed conditions for recognition of schools, were unreasonable and violated the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade, or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court found that the rules were vague and did not provide for a fair and impartial inquiry before refusing permission to start a school. The Court also held that the rules violated Article 14 of the Constitution as they discriminated between schools based on subjective and arbitrary criteria.
Issues: 1. Whether Rules 3(1) and 3(2) of the Grant-in-Aid Code were reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade, or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the rules violated the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Rules 3(1) and 3(2) of the Grant-in-Aid Code were unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade, or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court found that the rules were vague and did not provide for a fair and impartial inquiry before refusing permission to start a school. The Court also held that the rules violated Article 14 of the Constitution as they discriminated between schools based on subjective and arbitrary criteria. 2. The Court held that the rules violated the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution as they discriminated between schools based on subjective and arbitrary criteria.
Final Decision: The Court declared Rules 3(1) and 3(2) of the Grant-in-Aid Code to be invalid and directed the authorities to grant permission to the petitioners to start their schools.

JUDGMENT

PATEL J. - These three civil applications arise out of the action .of the State Government under the Grant-in-Aid Cole for Secondary Schools.

Civil Application No. 420 of 1966.

2. Petitioner No.1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 at Anjansinghi, Taluka Chandur, District Amravati, and petitioner No.2 is its President. This Society made an application for permission to open a Secondary School, and it was proposed to start in the first year 9th class, as there was sufficient arrangement in the village for education upto standard VIII in the Zilla Parish ad schools. First such application was made in 1963, which was rejected by respondents 1 and 2. Second was made in 1964 which met a similar fate. The Society marie another application on October 30, 1965. It appears that respondent No.3, which is another educational society which operated in Ashok Nagar, about 6 miles away from this village, also applied for ,permission to open a Secondary School at this village and in the first year to open class IX. The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur, by order (Annexture 3) dated April 12, 1966 informed the petitioners that their request cannot be granted because the need of the place had been fulfilled by permitting another Society to open a school at the place. It also contained a threat that in case a school were started even when permission was not granted and pupils were admitted, serious view would be taken by the Department. Appeal made by the petitioners to the State Government was dismissed, as shown by, Annexture 5. The petitioners seek to challenge this order on several grounds.

8pl. Cinil Appln. No. 421/1966.

3. Petitioner No.1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and started by the residents of village Shrikhed, taluka Morshi, District Amravati. Petitioner No.2 is its President. As in the case of the first Society, this Society also applied to start the school. An application was made on November 3, 1960 as required by the Act, though the first application wag made on October 29. 1965, Annexture No. I, but it was not in the prescribed form. Respondent No.3 which is another Society at Lehgaon also made an application to start a school at Shirkhed which was an outside agency. The petitioners application was rejected on the ground that the application wag made after the prescribed date and that the Society was not registered. It also contained a similar threat as in the other case.

4. This application is made by Sakharkheda Society, operating at to lakharkheda and is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1 ROO. The total number of the students of the schools from standard V to standards X in 1954 appeared to be 435. The Zilla Parishad runs a middle school in this village and the students numb approximately 150. After passing the middle school examination, the boys join the petitioners school. An application was made by Mehkar Shri Shivaji Education Society to open another school at this village but he permission was refused. It appears, the President of this Society ones V. Deehmukh a Pleder is a Member of the Legitdature and on March 9, 1995; he put certain questions in the Legislative Assembly. The question and are: (1) It was: the policy of the Government not to grant permi88ion to open another High School, if in a village there is already a High School, and the answer, "Yes, taking .into account the population of the village and also of adjoining area". (2) If 80, why was such permission granted to open High School at Lmar and why not at village Sakharkheda the answer: In village Sakharkheda permission to open anew High School was refused in 1964-65; for Lonar, the permission was given by Madhya Pradesh Govt. n 1953."

The respondent No.3, The Mehkar Society, then made an application for opening a school at this village. The Government seems to have granted permission to that Society to open Standards VIII and IX for 1965-66 and the petitioners se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document