IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5641 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- SATYAM EDUCATION TRUST Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Petitioners MR MA BUKHARI for Respondent No. 1 MR DIPAK DAVE for MR AD OZA for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of decision: 20/06/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner, Satyam Education Trust, applied for opening of new school at village Butavadar. This application came to be rejected by the respondent No.2. Being aggrieved of that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1, which also came to be rejected under the order dated 24th February, 1994. Hence, this special civil application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the three grounds which have been given for rejection of the application filed by the petitioner-trust for grant of registration of the school is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. In her submission, even if the building in which the petitioner desires to start the school was not taken to be sufficient for running of the school, the authorities instead of rejecting the application on this ground, should have asked the petitioners to arrange some suitable building. That has not been done. Second ground given that the trustees are the persons from the District other than the District where the school is proposed to be opened is hardly any ground to reject the application. They belong to the State and what she contends that there is no provision under the Act relating to registration of the school which provides for declining of the permission to start the new school on this ground. She submits that the petitioner NO.1-trust was registered and having its office at Butavadar, Tal. Jamkhambhalia, Dist. Jamnagar. It is a registered trust. So far as the last ground given that there is another school within 10 kms. area, Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the State Government itself has felt necessary to start the school at this village and reference in this respect has been made to the Government notification. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the authorities. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is true that unless the authority is satisfied that the building in which the trust proposes to start the school is suitable for running of the school, permission to start new school cannot be granted. However, where the building where the school is proposed to be started by the trust is not considered to be suitable by the authority, to reject the application on this ground, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to arrange another building is not reasonable. The schools are being permitted to be started in the villages so that the boys and girls residing therein get adequate educational facility. For this the State Government is also, from time to time, deciding in which villages the schools are to be opened. If the building is not suitable then it is such a ground which can be cured by the petitioner if it is really serious and desirous of starting the new school. This has not been done and the rejection of the application on this ground without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to arrange a suitable building is erroneous. I find no merits in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that it is open to the petitioner to make a fresh application after making an arrangement of suitable building for the school. The work with the authorities is heavy and for this duplication of application, it will add only more matters to the pending matters before those authorities. Moreover, it unnecessarily gives rise to the litigation which otherwise possibly would have been avoided. 6. Second ground given for rejection of the application of the petitioner-trust is also equally without any substance and merits. Learned counsel for the respondents have failed to show that all the trustees of a trust should belong to the same place where the trust has been registered. It is not unknown that there are many private trust or family trust or public trusts which have their registered officers even in different States, are anxious to start the schools in other States and in appropriate cases, such permissions are being granted. Similarly, even if it is take that all the trustees are from one family, I fail to see how far it can be a ground to reject the application. It is not the consideration nor under the Act it is provided to be a ground for rejection of the application. Predominant consideration should have been to see that the trust is financially sound enough and the persons i.e. the trustees are efficient to run the school. It is not unknown that even the companies are being permitted to start the institutions and if that is so permissible, and the trust where all the family members are trustees, can legitimately apply for grant of permission to run the school. 7. So far as ground No.3 is concerned, in view of the averments made in para-4(F) of the special civil application which are not controverted by the respondents, this matter needs to be considered by the respondent No.2. It is true that notification, reference of which has been made by the petitioner in the para aforesaid has not been produced but in case these averments have been controverted by the respondents, then possibly the court would have insisted for production of this notification on the record but when this has not been controverted, prima-facie what the petitioners state has to be accepted, more so, when this court is remanding back the matter to the respondent No.2 for consideration of the application, it is always open to that authority to insist for the production of this notification. 8. In the result, this special civil application succeeds and the same is allowed and the order of the respondents No.1 and 2, annexures `A' and `B' are quashed and set aside and the matter is sent back to the respondent No.1 to decide the application afresh in accordance with law. The petitioners are directed to produce all other necessary material to satisfy the authority that the building in which they propose to start the school is a suitable building for running of the school and further that adequate facilities for playground etc. are available. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. ********** zgs/-