Back
NEERAJ TIWARI
Purvanchal Prachya Ved Vidyaly, Bharauli – Appellant
Versus
State Of U P – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Neeraj Tiwari, J.
Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey and Sri Ashok Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.5.2018 passed by the respondent no.1 and further directing the respondent no.1 to take the petitioner Institution in grant-in-aid list in pursuance of the Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 and 11.2.2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is society in the name of Purvanchal Prachya Shiksha Samiti duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1860). The said society is running an educational institution in the name of Purvanchal Prachya Ved Vidyalay, Bharauli, Lar Road (hereinafter referred to as Institution) established in the year 1991-1992 and having affiliation with Sampuranand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. The aforesaid Institution was granted permanent recognition in the year 1994.
4. He next submitted that Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 & 11.2.2014 have been issued inviting application from Sanskrit Institution having recognition upto December
The importance of following committee recommendations, principles of natural justice, and equal treatment of institutions in grant-in-aid decisions.
when the petitioner-institution had been ousted from the list of selected institutions which was issued on 2.12.2006, then subsequently if the petitioner-institution was eligible, it could not be inc....
The court established that an institution's right to grant-in-aid crystallizes under earlier government orders, and arbitrary denial based on newer policies violates constitutional rights.
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 impugned order was contrary to the court's earlier directions, and the authorities were obligated to consider the compliance furnished by the petitioner institution and pass necessary orders in a....
The State's action violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it involved negation of equality and was discriminatory and arbitrary.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with grant-in-aid conditions and the violation of principles of natural justice in administrative decisions.
The court upheld that prior applications for sponsorship must be considered under previous laws in effect at the time of submission, not by subsequent policy changes.
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
