Procedural fairness and natural justice must be observed in administrative decisions, and all relevant evidence should be considered before making a decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.6850/A2/2018 dated 29.03.2023 (served on the petitioner School on 03.04.2023) and quash the same.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.6850/A2/2018 dated 29.03.2023 and quash the same.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner School was established in the year 1999-2000, and was granted with opening permission for the year 1999-2000 with standards I to VII vide proceedings dated 14.07.2000, formal permission for standards I to VII vide proceedings dated 12.03.2001, and temporary recognition vide proceedings dated 15.10.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner School was upgraded with standards VIII and IX vide proceedings dated 14.01.2003 and further granted with recognition upto X Standard vide proceedings dated 08.09.2003. The recognition has been renewed periodically for every three years. While so, the Government issued order in G.O(2D).No.48 dated 21.07.2004 prescribing minimum infrastructural facilities which include minimum land area for each school depending upon the location of the school. It is followed by G.O(2D).No.24 dated 23.04.2010 that the entire land area for the school should be composite land the playground or any part of the School should not be in a different place. Subsequently, the Government has constituted a Committee to reconsider the entire issue vide G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 05.03.2013. The Committee has submitted its report in the year 2017 as per which the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.175 dated 20.07.2017 prescribing condition restricting admission of number of students in accordance with availability of land space at the rate of 10 sq.ft per student and 40 sq.ft per teacher. The conditions relating to land requirement as noted in G.O(2D).No.48 and G.O(2D).No.24 has been deleted and modified.

3. The petitioner School submitted a proposal seeking up-gradation as Higher Secondary School in the year 2012 on payment of necessary charges enclosed with documents including statutory certificates as required under Matriculation Code. However, no order was passed by the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner School has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26920 of 2014 and this Court passed an order on 22.02.2018 to consider the representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks after due opportunity. Subsequently, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 10.12.2019 to inspect the school and submit a report for the purpose of consideration of the application for upgradation of the School. Thereafter, the third respondent inspected the school and submitted a report and recommended for up-gradation of the school as Higher Secondary school vide report dated 22.09.2020. However, the second respondent issued a notice dated 25.03.2021 in deviation to the order passed in the writ petition relating to upgradation of the School and the petitioner School submitted a reply on 21.04.2021. However, the second respondent has passed the impugned order on 29.03.2023, served on 03.04.2023, withdrawing the recognition granted in favour of the petitioner School for standards LKG to X granted from the academic year 1999 by stating that the School cannot function from the academic year 2023-24. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, the petitioner School submitted a detailed reply narrating the fact that the petitioner School obtained a lease deed in the year 2009 to the extent of 1 acre 1 cent and 609 sq.feet. However, the said deed was not properly considered and without providing any opportu