JUDGMENT :

ABHAY AHUJA, J.

1. By an order passed today, we have dismissed the writ petition for reasons to follow. We are accordingly setting out the reasons as under.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner trust is seeking directions to the respondents No. 1 to 5, to close VIIIth Class in the respondents’ No. 7 and 8 schools and to transfer the students to the Petitioner school on the ground that establishment of VIIIth standard by the Zilla Parishad School will result in unhealthy competition.

3. The petitioner is a registered educational trust imparting Urdu education and is running school by the name “Anglo Urdu School” Jamkhed, Taluka Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar and is also receiving grants-in-aid. The said school is imparting Urdu medium education to students pursuant to permission granted in the year 1987.

4. The Petitioner submits that for the last 30 years till the year 2017, the Petitioner and the Zilla Parishad schools including respondents No. 7 and 8 have existed without any dispute. However, from the year 2017, the Zilla Parishad school has allegedly started VIIIth class. The petitioner submits that, the Zilla Parishad schools have not complied with Government Resolution dated 29.6.2013, which lays down the parameters regarding infrastructural facilities to be made available in the school submitting that it has spent huge amount on infrastructural facilities, whereas, the Zilla Parishad School is operating VIIIth Class without any facilities. It is also contended that in view of clause 3.2(1) of the Secondary School Code, 1999 a primary school cannot open VIIIth class in the area adjacent to a neighbouring school which may result in unhealthy competition and the teachers of the Petitioner will be rendered surplus. However, except for making these bald allegations, the petitioner has not been able to substantiate or demonstrate as to how the said Government Resolution or provisions of Secondary School Code of 1999 have been violated.

5. Mr. Anand Bhandari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner Trust draws our attention to Section 6 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter, “the RTE Act”) and submits that it is only where a school is not established in the neighbourhood that the appropriate Government and the local authorities shall establish a school in that area. To appreciate this argument Section 6 the RTE Act is quoted as under:-

“6. Duty of appropriate Government and local authority to establish school:-

For carrying out the provisions of this Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall establish, within such area or limits of neighbourhood, as may be prescribed, a school, where it is not so established, within a period of three years from the commencement of this Act.”

6. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with the interpretation canvassed by Mr. Bhandari. From a bare reading of the Section we observe that the Section mandates the appropriate Government or the local authority to establish a school in every neighbourhood where such a school is not established by the appropriate Government or the local authority. Even the Notes on Clauses with reference to the above Section 6 of the RTE Act, provides for establishment of a school in every neighbourhood. Not only that, a cursory look at the statement of objects and reasons to the RTE Act would make it clear that the RTE Act is a social welfare legislation. The objective of this legislation is to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution, which lays down that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14 years. Article 21-A which has been inserted by the Constitution (86th amendment) Act, 2002, provides for free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of 6 to 14 years as a fundamental right. It is to achieve this object that the RTE Act has been enac