Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Harish Chandra & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Lt. Governor & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) 1723 of 2017 & CM No. 7705 of 2017
Decided On : 14-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kamal Kant Jha
For the Respondents: Mr. Pankaj Sinha
The primary purpose of the hostel was to ensure shelter for visually challenged young students up to Class VIII during their education at the school, emphasizing the limited scope of availability of the fundamental right to education and the need to accommodate blind students studying at the school in the hostel.
Headnote:
Eviction - Hostel Inmates - Delhi Education Act, 1973, Section 20 - W.P. (C) 3444/2008, W.P. (C) 1610/1996 - The court discussed the eviction of hostel inmates from a residential middle school for the visually impaired, based on an eviction notice issued by the Principal. The court referred to the Delhi Education Act, 1973, Section 20, and previous court orders in W.P. (C) 3444/2008 and W.P. (C) 1610/1996, highlighting the limited scope of availability of the fundamental right to education and the primary purpose of having a hostel attached to the school to ensure shelter for visually challenged young students up to Class VIII. The court emphasized the reasonable policy of restricting the hostel facility to children who have not yet completed Class VIII and the need to accommodate blind students studying at the school in the hostel, leading to the dismissal of the petition and the pending application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, inmates of a hostel attached to a residential middle school for the visually impaired, challenged an eviction notice issued by the Principal, claiming victimization and demanding better facilities and articles of basic needs. They argued that the hostel was not exclusively for students up to class VIII and referred to previous court orders and the objectives of the petitioner society to provide work and training to adult blinds and help the poor and needy blinds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the primary purpose of the hostel was to ensure shelter for visually challenged young students up to Class VIII during their education at the school. It held that the petitioners have no right to continue to occupy the hostel and emphasized the need to accommodate blind students studying at the school in the hostel. The court dismissed the petition and the pending application with observations regarding the need for alternative accommodation and a direction to not take coercive steps to evict the petitioners for a period of four months.
Issues: The issues revolved around the eviction of hostel inmates from a residential middle school for the visually impaired, the right to continue to occupy the hostel, and the need for alternative accommodation for the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the limited scope of availability of the fundamental right to education, the primary purpose of the hostel to provide shelter for visually challenged young students up to Class VIII, and the need to accommodate blind students studying at the school in the hostel.
Final Decision: The petition and the pending application were dismissed, with observations regarding the need for alternative accommodation and a direction to not take coercive steps to evict the petitioners for a period of four months.
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The petitioners are inmates of the hostel attached to Andh Mahavidyalaya, Panchkuian Road - which is a residential middle school for the visually impaired - and have filed the present petition impugning the eviction notice dated 24.09.2016 (hereafter “the impugned notice”) issued by the Principal, Andh Mahavidyalaya, Panchkuian Road, New Delhi, whereby the petitioners were called upon to vacate the hostel within a period of six months from the date of the impugned notice.
2. The aforesaid impugned notice was issued pursuant to the order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court on 07.05.2010 in W.P. (C) 3444/2008 titled “Lalit & Others v. Govt. of NCT & Anr.”.
3. The petitioners claim that they were admitted to Andh Mahavidyalaya, Panchkuian Road, New Delhi (hereafter “the School”) in their childhood and are presently pursuing their further studies and preparing for competitive examinations. The School is a middle school, that is, only up to class VIII. Although, the petitioners are no longer students of the School, they continue to reside in the hostel attached to that school.
4. The petitioners claim that the impugned notice has been issued to victimise them for raising their voice and demanding better facilities and articles of basic needs. It is further claimed that the impugned notice had been issued on the basis that the hostel attached to the School is meant for students up to class VIII only. However, the same is erroneous. The petitioners claim that till 1976-1977 only students up to class X were residing at the hostel but thereafter this condition was waived and all blind persons, irrespective of their age and educational standards were allowed to reside at the hostel.
5. Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also referred to an order dated 31.07.2001 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 1610/1996 titled “Smt Darshan Khattar & Others v. Lt. Governor, Govt. NCT of Delhi & Others”, wherein this Court had observed as under:-
“It is not denied that amongst the objects of the petitioner society are the objects to provide work, training to adult blinds and to help the poor and needy blinds from the donations. In the hostel besides the students of the school other persons are also staying. Some of these persons are poor and some are employed in technical institutions. Certain blind persons to whom the work is provided by the society are also staying in the hostel. Since it is one of the aims and objects of the society to provide work to the trained adult blinds and to help the poor and needy blinds, hostel accommodation has been provided to such persons. It is thus clear that the hostel is not meant exclusively for the students of the school. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the petitioner that hostel is a part and parcel of the school.”
He, thus, submitted that the petitioners would also have the right to stay in the hostel. He further submitted that in addition to the School (Andh Mahavidyalaya being run at Panchkuian Road), there is another school for the visually impaired, located at Hari Nagar Ghantaghar, which has been handed over to Sarvodaya School. He submitted that the said school should also be upgraded for higher studies to accommodate blind students like the petitioners. He stated that there is no justification for handing over the school, which was for blind students to Sarvodaya School.
6. The Blind Social Welfare Society was incorporated in the year 1950 and was running the School. The School is a residential school and the hostel is attached to the School. The administrator in exercise of its powers under Section 20 of the Delhi Education Act, 1973 directed that the management of the School be taken over and the School be managed through the Directorate of Education who would nominate and authorize an officer to run the School.
7. The petitioners state that eighteen of the petitioners are within the age group of 21 to 30 years; nine of the petitioners are
