Important Point- When any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular act, the said thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner prescribed therefore in the Act.

Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.07.2010, passed by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, respondent No. 2 herein, whereby the registration of the school run by the petitioner Trust has been cancelled and the order dated 17.03.2011, passed by the first respondent State Government in appeal, confirming the order of the second respondent.

2. As per the narration in the petition, the petitioner Trust is running Achchala Chhariya Secondary School at Village Simaliya, Taluka Goghamba, District Panchmahals, for the last thirty years. The said school is situated in a forest area and mainly children from Adivasi families come to study there. According to the petitioner, there was no complaint against the school during the entire period of thirty years of its establishment. Trouble started brewing upon the appointment of one Shri Devendra Patel as Principal on 24.12.2004. As per the version of the petitioner, thereafter the result of the school began to deteriorate leading to the stoppage of the Government grant to it by the District Education Officer ("DEO" for short), the fourth respondent herein. Due to the poor administration of the school by the Principal, students and teachers stopped coming to the school regularly. It is stated in the petition that there was also an issue regarding the forging of the signature of the President of the petitioner Trust by the Principal on the option forms, which led to the filing of a police complaint by the petitioner. The Principal was suspended and permission to proceed against him under Section 36(1) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 ("the Act" for short), was accorded by the fourth respondent. A Show-cause Notice was issued by the School Management to the Principal on 22.09.2009, for misappropriation of money and dereliction of duty, among other charges. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to protect his service, the Principal, in connivance with the Sarpanch of the village and other teachers, put a lock on the School and took, in writing, from some villagers whose children were not studying in the School, that they want to take over the management of the School. The Principal then issued School Leaving Certificates to all the children at the behest of respondent No. 4 who, according to the petitioner, was misled by letters from some parents, purportedly instigated by the Principal, without verifying the factual position. The students were accommodated in a nearby School.

3. The President of the petitioner Trust, upon coming to know of the issuance of School Leaving Certificates to the children, approached the parents who stated that they wanted their children to study in the petitioner's School. These facts were brought to the notice of the fourth respondent. However, respondent No. 4 issued a Show-cause Notice to the petitioner as to why standards eight, nine and ten of the School should not be closed down, as there were no students. The petitioner replied to the Show-cause Notice but the fourth respondent passed an order dated 01.12.2009, closing down the School. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 16.12.2009 before the Commissioner of Schools, which was not decided. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 3277 of 2010 in which, by an order dated 15.03.2010, this Court directed the Commissioner of Schools to decide the appeal within eight weeks and if it was not decided in the stipulated period of time, an application was directed to be filed. The petitioner contends that in spite of the above order of this Court, the appeal has not been decided till date. It is the case of the petitioner that under the garb of this order, to which respondent No. 2 Board was not party, the petitioner's School was informed telephonically, that a hearing was kept regarding the c