Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
CALORX EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13210 of 2021
Decided On : 13-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Writ petition - Gujarat Primary Education Act, 1947 - Section 40-A(8) - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012 - Rule 13 - Advertisement was published by respondent in local newspapers, inviting applications for starting new schools - Pursuant to such advertisement, petitioner filed two separate online applications - Respondent rejected two applications on ground that petitioner did not comply with order of respondent requiring petitioner to pay fine of Rs. 50 lakhs - Petitioner contends that no opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner and there was breach of principles of natural justice - Respondent submitted that considering conduct of petitioner as per order passed by District Education Officer to continue to operate school without recognition is a very serious issue and only on that ground appellate authority has rightly rejected appeals filed by petitioner - Merely because provisions of section 40A(2) of Act, 1947 are complied with petitioner is not entitled to recognition contrary to provisions of section 13 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012 – Held, it is not emerging from the record that at any point of time, respondent called upon petitioner order would be relied upon to deny recognition of petitioner nor petitioner was put to notice that such order would disentitle petitioner from being granted recognition by the authority under provisions of Act, 1947 read with RTE Rules - As it emerges from record, petitioner has already complied with order and if petitioner would have been called upon by respondent, petitioner would have placed such facts before respondent - Petitioner has also explained in this petition as to under what circumstances school was run without recognition inasmuch as in view of Covid-19 pandemic situation, academic session was extended and petitioner was compelled to run school beyond April, 2021 and for that petitioner has already paid penalty as levied by order so as to save academic year of students studying in school which was run by petitioner - Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave with learned advocates Mr. Bijal Chhatrapati and Mr. Arvind Parikh for J Sagar Associates for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for respondent no.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr. K.M. Antani and Mr. Aayan Patel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aayan Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.3-District Primary Education Officer.
3. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition which is in a very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
4. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
(b) Pass an order for costs against the Respondents.
(c) Pass such further order or orders and/or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
5. Brief facts of the case are as under :
5.2 Respondent no.3 vide two orders of even date dated 30th January, 2021 rejected the two applications on the ground that the petitioner did not comply with order of respondent no.1 dated 6th October, 2020 requiring the petitioner to pay fine of Rs. 50 lakhs. It is the case of the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and therefore, there was breach of principles of natural justice.
5.3 Being aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent no.3, the petitioners preferred Appeal No. AHM/100054 on 4th February, 2021 and Appeal No. AHM/100055 on 6th February, 2021 before the respondent no.1.
5.4 On 19th February, 2021 hearing took place where the petitioner made oral submissions and also submitted written submissions in support of such appeals.
5.5 It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.1 took no steps within a period of two months from the date of its presentation as is required as per section 40-A(8) of the Gujarat Primary Education Act, 1947 (For short “the Act, 1947”) and after a prolonged gap of nearly five months, on 7th July, 2021 the respondent no.1 raised a query calling for an affidavit to be filed regarding the management of the proposed school, which the petitioner filed on the same date.
5.6 On 14th July, 2021 respondent no.1 again raised queries about the registered land on which the school was to be started which was replied by the petitioner on 15th July, 2021 and on 19th July, 2021.
5.7 On 19th July, 2021, respondent no.1 raised further queries regarding the land which the petitioner replied on 20th July, 2021.
5.8 It is the case of the petitioner that on 24th July, 2021 respondent no.1 also made verbal inquiries which the petitioner replied on 26th Ju
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
