SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 190

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M.S. SONAK & BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
Vikas Parishad Mandrem, represented by its Secretary Narayan J. Naik & Another – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa through the Chief Secretary & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Filing) No. 83 of 2021
Decided On : 16-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Parag Rao, M. Naik, Advocates
For the Respondents:Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with P. Arolkar, Additional Government Advocate, A.A. Agni, Senior Advocate with Jay Sawaikar, Advocate

The State's action violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it involved negation of equality and was discriminatory and arbitrary.

Headnote:

Grant-in-Aid - Educational Institution - Society Registration Act, 1860 - [Society Registration Act, 1860] - The court discussed the refusal of grant-in-aid to an educational society under the Society Registration Act, 1860, for running a B.Com curriculum in its college. The court found that the decision-making process of the State Government was vulnerable due to the finance authorities' arbitrary and discriminatory actions. The court held that the State's action violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it involved negation of equality and was discriminatory and arbitrary. The court quashed and set aside the impugned communications and directed the State Government to release the grant in favor of the petitioner for running the B.Com curriculum in the college from the academic year 2017-2018, with arrears to be cleared in 6 equal installments. The grant for the current academic year 2020-2021 was also directed to be released within 2 months from the judgment date.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an educational society, sought relief from the court after the State Government refused to provide grant-in-aid for running a B.Com curriculum in its college. The petitioner alleged belligerent and discriminatory treatment and invoked the writ jurisdiction of the court seeking relief of quashing and setting aside the State Government's action.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the decision-making process of the State Government was vulnerable due to the finance authorities' arbitrary and discriminatory actions. The court held that the State's action violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it involved negation of equality and was discriminatory and arbitrary. The court quashed and set aside the impugned communications and directed the State Government to release the grant in favor of the petitioner for running the B.Com curriculum in the college from the academic year 2017-2018, with arrears to be cleared in 6 equal installments. The grant for the current academic year 2020-2021 was also directed to be released within 2 months from the judgment date.

Issues: The main issue was the refusal of grant-in-aid to the petitioner's educational institution for running a B.Com curriculum, and the petitioner's allegation of belligerent and discriminatory treatment by the State Government.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State's action violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it involved negation of equality and was discriminatory and arbitrary. The court quashed and set aside the impugned communications and directed the State Government to release the grant in favor of the petitioner for running the B.Com curriculum in the college from the academic year 2017-2018, with arrears to be cleared in 6 equal installments. The grant for the current academic year 2020-2021 was also directed to be released within 2 months from the judgment date.

Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned communications, and directed the State Government to release the grant in favor of the petitioner for running the B.Com curriculum in the college from the academic year 2017-2018, with arrears to be cleared in 6 equal installments. The grant for the current academic year 2020-2021 was also directed to be released within 2 months from the judgment date.

JUDGMENT :

Bharati H. Dangre, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Alleging belligerent and discriminatory treatment afforded to the Petitioners in not admitting the petitioner no.2, the College run by petitioner no.1-grant-in-aid and further alleging that the said denial is on flimsy and partisan grounds, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking relief of quashing and setting aside the said action of the State Government and writ in the nature of a mandamus directing the respondents to grant aid to the petitioners w.e.f. academic session 2013-14.

3. The petitioner no. 1 is an educational society registered under the relevant provisions of the Society Registration Act, 1860 and claim to be a pioneer in the educational field in the State, having started the secondary school education in the year 1978 and a higher secondary section from the year 1990. Since the students in the adjoining area were finding it difficult to enrol themselves in the primary section in the school which were located at a distance, a primary section came to be added in the year 1995. The petitioner no.1-Society aim to make education easily accessible and available to the children of Mandrem and nearby villages. At the three levels the Petitioner is presently providing education and is in receipt of grantin- aid from the very inception when steps were taken to initialise the distinct levels of education.

4. The grievance of the petitioners pertain to the refusal of the respondent to provide aid, when the petitioner no.1 intended to further extend their horizon to provide education at graduation level. Considering the fact based scenario, in absence of any government or private college providing degree education in Mandrem in the year 2012 and the only college available being the Government College at Pernem, located at a distance of about 23 kms from the college of the petitioners and since the said college was assessed to be beyond the reach of the students who were aspirant of prosecuting their graduation studies and residing at Morjim, Palyen, Keri and Terecol locality at a distance of 26kms, 28kms, 30kms and 35kms respectively, the petitioner no.1 applied for affiliation to the Goa University to start degree college in the stream of Arts, B.Com, BBA and Vocational course on 26.09.2011. The need is further intensified, as per the Petitioners since the Government College at Pernem is not directly accessible along the National Highway 17 and is located in Village Vernoda on the outskirts of the Pernem Municipal area and the students of Mandrem and the nearby villages were required to follow the ardous route by changing 2 buses to reach college.

5. The case of the petitioner no.1 is that within the radius of 10 kms from the college at Mandrem there are 3 institutions which are imparting higher secondary education, namely, Harmal Panchakroshi Higher Secondary School at Harmal, Kamleshwar Higher Secondary School at Korgao and St. Xavier Higher Secondary School at Siolim, apart from the petitioner no.1's own institution being Sapteshwar Higher Secondary School at Mandrem. As per the data collated by the Petitioner no.1, about 480 students become eligible to pursue their graduation every academic year. Juxtaposed against the existing scenario of only one Government college at Vernoda, which cater to the education of students passing higher secondary education from Government Higher Secondary School at Pernem, Colvale and Nagzar which has a capacity of 120 students clearing HSSC Exam, the college in Vernoda is their first choice being the closest college. However, in light of the limited 120 seats available in Government College at Pernem for B.Com Degree course, as per the petitioner 480 students from 4 places mentioned above who passed their higher secondary education are unable to access the degree education in Mandrem or in Pernem taluka. Considering

                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                  supreme today icon
                  logo-black

                  An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                  Please visit our Training & Support
                  Center or Contact Us for assistance

                  qr

                  Scan Me!

                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                  whatsapp-icon Back to top