JUDGMENT :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas appearing for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nalanda Acharya appearing for the respondent–State. At the outset today, learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas has tendered an affidavit in the form of an undertaking, which is taken on record.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner–Trust has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 15/12/2015 passed by the Resp. No. 1;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to and further be pleased to permit the petitioner Trust to run the Holy Child English Medium Primary School and Sugnabai Hindi Medium Primary School;

(C) Be pleased to pass such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper by Your Lordships in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Vide impugned order dated 15.12.2015, the respondent–Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, has cancelled the recognition of Holy Child Primary School (English medium) and Sugnabai Primary School (Hindi medium) on account of a scam alleged against the petitioner–Trust, considering its seriousness. The aforesaid order is under challenge by way of the present petition.

4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

4.1 The petitioner–Trust runs two schools, one in the English medium and other in the Hindi medium. The schools are operated under the names Holy Child English Medium School and Sugnabai Primary School. Initially, both schools were permitted to open only one class each. Subsequently, upon obtaining permission every year, the number of classes were gradually increased, and education came to be imparted in Standards 1 to 7. Thereafter, one additional class was added in each standard, and ultimately both schools were running 14 classes each for Standards 1 to 7 in the Hindi and English mediums. In the academic year 2003–2004, the English medium school had 824 students, while the Hindi medium school had 730 students. According to the petitioner, a raid was carried out on 11.08.2004, and although no irregularities or illegalities were found against the petitioner, the respondents cancelled the recognition of the schools without affording any opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory rules.

4.2 Though it has not been stated while narrating the facts that an FIR was also registered against the Trustees of the School, the record indicates that, in view of the alleged irregularities, which led to the arrest of the Trustees on the aforesaid as well as other grounds, the recognition of both the Schools was cancelled vide order dated 11.08.2004.

4.3 The petitioner challenged the aforesaid action by way of Special Civil Application No. 10062 of 2006. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while deciding the matter and making the Rule absolute, made the following observations in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of the order dated 28.01.2015.

“6. However considering the submission made by learned AGP Ms.Chitaliya that the petitioner Trust which is running a school in question, has indulged in malpractice and irregularity of the misappropriation of huge funds, the interest of justice would be served if the respondent no.2 is directed to take necessary steps in accordance with law after following the procedure as provided under Rule 109. The provisions of the Rule 109(3) clearly provides, “No recommendations for withdrawal of recognition shall be made except after holding an inquiry. Thus, it is evident that same inquiry is required to be held and manner of holding inquiry is also provided, which referred to the specific charges and the opportunity to submit defence or explanation.

7. In the circumstances, the present petition stands allowed and the impugned order dat