IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (113+309) CM-3592-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-15225-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 17.03.2025 Surinder Kumar Goel ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Petitioner in person.

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. B.S. Seemar, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yash Pal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 6.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the prayer of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 6-School is revising the fees details of which are mentioned in the impugned form No. 6 (Annexure P-10) , which is causing prejudice to the petitioner as his children are studying in the said respondent No. 6-

School.

2. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that respondent No. 6-School is not recognized and, therefore, only the recognized school can claim the enhancement of fees and not the unrecognized School.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6-School submits that the respondent No. 6-School is already recognized and No Objection Certificate (NOC) for running the School has been granted by the State and once, No Objection Certificate is already in existence, no recognition was needed with regard to the said School which came into existence prior to the year 2003, the prayer of the petitioner that respondent No. 6-School cannot enhance the fees or can file an application with the authorities concerned for enhancing the fees, is incorrect.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State also concedes that No Objection Certificate has already been given with regard to the operation of respondent No. 6-School.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. From the pleadings, it transpires that the provisional recognition has already been given to respondent No. 6-School. The question whether, the said recognition/NOC is to be turned into permanent recognition/NOC, is a matter which is to be decided by the State. Further, once No Objection Certificate (NOC) has been given by the State to respondent No. 6-School to continue with the operation, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance regarding the fact that only those Schools which have the permanent recognition, can approach the authorities for enhancement of the fees.

7. As regard to the issue of the recognition of respondent No. 6- School, as no clear reply has come on record, the State is directed to pass appropriate order on the recognition of respondent No. 6-School and whether the same enjoys the permanent recognition as of now or not. The said order be passed after hearing the School as well as the petitioner who appears in person.

8. Let the said issue be decided after hearing the School as well as the petitioner.

9. The present petition is disposed of in above terms.

10. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

March 17, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

kanchan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No