IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. Thaker, J.
Industrial Training Institute, Shree Raj Shyamaji Seva Trust – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 11415 of 2022 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2022 with R/Special Civil Application No. 11416 of 2022 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2022 with R/Special Civil Application No. 11418 of 2022 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2022 with R/Special Civil Application No. 11420 of 2022 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2022
Decided On : 11-11-2022
ARBITRARY - Recurring Grant Dispute - Government Resolution dated 14th August 2014 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Government Resolution dated 14th August 2014, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a self-financed industrial training institute, sought recurring grant from the State Government. The grant was initially approved, and salary bills were paid. However, the grant was later suspended, and the petitioner approached the court seeking relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grant in aid Code applied to the recurring grant, and prior approval of the Finance Department was necessary. The court dismissed the petitions as premature, directing the government to decide the representations after affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard.
Issues: Prematurity of the petitions, application of the grant in aid Code, necessity of prior approval from the Finance Department
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any decision with financial implications requires approval from the Finance Department and that the impugned communication was a stopgap measure pending a final decision. The court also emphasized the need for the petitioners to await the decision on their representations before approaching the court.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the government authorities were directed to decide the representations after affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard.
ORDER :
1. Since the common facts and question of law are involved in all these petitions, all are heard and being disposed of by this common judgment. Learned advocates for the parties have referred to the pleadings of Special Civil Application No.11420 of 2022 and, therefore, it is treated as main matter and the facts have been taken from the same.
2. The petitioners have preferred the respective petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:-
(B) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned communication dated 23.05.2022 issued by Respondent no.2;
(C) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant any other and further orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”
2.1 All the prayers are identical in these petitions and the only difference is the date of impugned order in Special Civil Application No.11418 of 2022, which is 3.6.2022.
3. Heard Learned advocate Mr.Mitul Shelat for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader, Ms.Manisha Shah for the respondent-State at length. Perused the material placed on record and the decisions cited at bar.
4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:-
4.1 The petitioner is a Self Financed Industrial Training Institute established and managed by Shree Raj Shyamaji Seva Trust. That to implement the policy of the State Government of establishing industrial training institutes in rural and tribal areas, the petitioner institute was established by the Trust. Initially, temporary permission was granted to the petitioner institute in terms of letter dated 5th August 2015 and 29th October 2016. It was granted permanent affiliation by the Director General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of India vide letter dated 25th September 2016.
4.2 That the petitioner institute is imparting various industrial training courses and is creating employment opportunities for rural and tribal students in Kalol taluka. It is contended that in order to provide greater access to the students, the petitioner decided to apply for recurring grant from the State Government. It is contended that the Government of Gujarat has introduced a policy of providing recurring grant for 94 ITI institutes comprising of establishment of 282 teachers.
4.3 According to the petitioner, since only limited institutes applied in reference to the said policy and some of the institutes which were granted benefits of recurring grants were closed down, the State Government was granting recurring grants to self finance institutes on case to case basis. That the petitioner by letter dated 30th May 2021 submitted an application for being considered for the benefit of recurring grant to Additional Chief Secretary, Labour and Employment Department. It is contended that the petitioner undertook that in the event it is paid the recurring grant, it would not charge fees. Pursuant to the said application of the petitioner respondent no.1 by letter dated 11th June 2021 instructed respondent no.2 to take steps in respect of said application of the petitioner.
4.4 That pursuant to the said letter of respondent no.1, Deputy Director, Employment and Training Department, Gandhinagar, by letter dated 20th June 2021 instructed respondent no.3 to conduct inspection and asked to check information and documents of the petitioner institute. The Regional Deputy Director, Vadodara, was instructed to submit his report to Employment and Training Department, Gandhinagar. Pursuant to that instruction respondent no.3 conducted inspection on 1st July 2021 and verified all the documents submitted by the petitioner institute and ultima
Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji
Shivagangagiri Vidyabiruddi Samste v. State of Karnataka and Others
Dipak Babaria and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others
Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji
Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner
Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
Opto Circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank and Others
Mohinder Singh Gill & Another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.
Bhagwan Budha Prathmik Technical Training College, Nirmali v. State of Bihar and Others
The main legal point established is that decisions with financial implications require prior approval from the Finance Department, and premature petitions should be dismissed.
The State's action violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it involved negation of equality and was discriminatory and arbitrary.
The Right to free education does not confer entitlement to recurring aid for all private primary schools; compliance with legal requirements is essential for salary claims against the State.
The obligation of the State to provide free education under Article 21A does not create an automatic right for private institutions to receive recurring grants from the government.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the discriminatory refusal of financial approval by the State Government, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, despite admin....
The importance of following committee recommendations, principles of natural justice, and equal treatment of institutions in grant-in-aid decisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.