IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 745 of 2010 (M/S) Umed Singh Rawat Indu Samiti Having Registered office at Village Basai Post Office-Peerumadara, Ramnagar District Nainital through its Manager and Secretary Sandeep Rawat S/o Shri Prem Singh Rawat. ……Petitioner Versus State and others. …….Respondents Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for the respondents. Dated:-26-10-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “I. A writ or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 27.02.2009, passed by respondent No. 2 State Project Director, Uttarakhand, Dehradun contained as Annexure No. 5 to this Writ petition. 2. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to release the entire payment along with penal rate of interest in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the education imparted under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme for the year 2007-2008 in the light of the observation made by the Hon’ble Court in judgment and order dated 17.12.2008 at the prevailing rates for that particular academic session. 3. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Award cost of the petition to the present petitioner.” Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that vide order dated 27.02.2009, respondent No. 2-State Project Director, 2 Uttarakhand, Dehradun, has rejected the claim of the petitioner relating to the payment in respect of the education imparted under ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ Scheme for the year 2007-08. Said order was assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition No. 587 (M/S) of 2008, whereby earlier order dated 29.02.2008, passed by respondent No. 3-District Project Officer, and order dated 14.04.2008, passed by respondent No. 4- District Magistrate, Nainital, are quashed and directed the authorities concerned to take a decision afresh relating to payment to the petitioner in respect of the education imparted under ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ Scheme for the year 2007-08. Certified copy of the above order was served on the respondent along with application dated 24.12.2008. It is made clear at this juncture that this application was moved to serve certified copy of the judgment of this Court on the respondent. According to the petitioner, no fresh representation was made by him and an application dated 24.12.2008, moved by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 27.02.2009. Aggrieved by said order, petitioner filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this Court in writ petition No. 587 of 2008 (M/S) has given a positive direction to take a decision afresh relating to the payment to the petitioner in respect of education imparted under ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ Scheme for the year 2007-08. Against said judgment, special appeal No. 269 of 2009, was filed by the respondents, which was dismissed as infructuous on 30.04.2010 by the Division Bench of this Court (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) on the ground that the authorities concerned have passed a fresh order dated 27.02.2009. It is made clear that this Special Appeal has not been decided on merits and the impugned order in appeal was not set aside. Thereafter, a Contempt Petition No. 27 of 2009, was dismissed on the ground that no willful disobedience of the order of the writ court has been made by the opposite party and it was observed that the appropriate forum for redressal of petitioner’s grievance is somewhere else and not the contempt forum. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent to controvert the averment made in the writ petition. This fact is not disputed that the controversy in the earlier writ petition and the present writ petition are same. The averment made in the counter affidavit is a repetition of the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition and the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that permission was 3 granted to run two centers namely, Dabka and Kosi for imparting education to the poor children under the ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ Scheme and rest of the centers are being run without permission of the Government. Vide impugned order dated 27.02.2009, instead of passing order for payment to the petitioner, representation dated 24.12.2008, moved by the petitioner has been rejected. Respondent No. 2 has himself observed that no representation has been made by the petitioner and it was only a letter dated 24.12.2008, moved by the petitioner for serving the certified copy of the judgment of this Court on the respondent. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 rejected the claim of the petitioner by a fresh order on the same ground as mentioned in orders dated 29.02.2008 and 14.04.2008. Said orders were quashed by writ court vide order dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). In the earlier writ petition No. 587 of 2008 (M/S), same stand was taken by the respondent, which is mentioned in para-4 of the judgment. The same is being reproduced below:- “The respondent No. 3 has filed his counter affidavit, in which it is admitted that the petitioner is a registered Society, who runs a NGO. It is also admitted that the petitioner was allowed to run two centers namely, Dabka and Kosi for imparting education to the scheme. However, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had no sanction for running ten sub-centres. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner cannot run ten sub-centres without approval from the authorities concerned, as such the petitioner is not entitled for release of the amount sought by him for the year 2007-08.” Admittedly, the petitioner is a NGO, who was given sanction to run two centers in Dabka and Kosi to impart education to poor children of marginalized families under ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ for the year 2004-05. It is also true that initially the expected number of children was 127, however, considering the success of the scheme it appears that the petitioner was allowed to run the centers for the year 2006-07 and 2007- 08. The only disputed question is that whether the petitioner was entitled to run the education centers in ten sub-centres/camps or not. This question was dealt in detail in para-5 of the order passed in writ petition No. 587 of 2008 (M/S) and the Court gave a categorical finding, which is quoted below:- “In these circumstances, this Court finds that what the petitioner has stated that he was in fact allowed to run two centers in ten sub- centres/camps, keeping in mind the terrain where the education was to be 4 imparted, appears to be correct. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the order dated 14.04.2008, passed by District Magistrate, Nainital, shows that the petitioner was running the center without any authority”. After perusal of the record, the Court in writ petition No. 587 of 2008 (M/S), has further observed the following:- “The District Magistrate, Nainital appears to have ignored the relevant documents which indicate that the petitioner-NGO was running two centers through ten sub-centres/camps and the education given to the students of poor families was duly verified by the education authorities.” In para-5 of the earlier writ petition Supra, the detail of the students, who got education, has been mentioned. The relevant portion of said para is being reproduced below:- “……..in the year 2007-08, the education authorities themselves verified number of students 622 under Alternative and Innovative Education center Dabka and 983 students in the similar center at Kosi, who were given education in 4 and 6 sub centers respectively (in total 10 sub centers). Annexure-6 to the writ petition shows that from time to time the information and statements were duly submitted to the education authorities”. On the basis of material on record, this Court gave categorical finding, which is as under:- “Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, as discussed above, this Court feels that the petitioner has wrongly been denied the payment for imparting education to poor children of marginalized families through ten camps/sub-centres of the two centers in Dabka and Kosi, for the year 2007-08. Accordingly, to that extent, impugned order dated 29.02.2008, passed by District Project Officer, Nainital, and the order dated 14.04.2008, passed by District Magistrate, Nainital, are hereby quashed. The authorities are directed to take a decision afresh relating to payment to the petitioner in respect of the education imparted under ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ Scheme for the year 2007-08, in the light of the observations made above.” On perusal of categorical finding given by this Court, it reveals that the authority by passing fresh order dated 27.02.2009 tried to sit over the judgment of this Court and the impugned order has been passed on the same ground as mentioned in earlier writ petition No. 587 of 2008 (M/S) by ignoring the observations made in the judgment. Since the ground 5 mentioned in the impugned order is similar to that of earlier writ petition, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order is wholly illegal. While passing the order dated 17.12.2008, intention of this Court was to take afresh decision regarding payment to the petitioner in respect of the education imparted in view of the observation made in the judgment, the Court has categorically held that the petitioner has wrongly been denied the payment for imparting education to poor children of marginalized families through ten camps/sub-centres of the two centers in Dabka and Kosi for the year 2007-08 and earlier orders dated 29.02.2008 and 14.04.2008, were set aside. Authorities concerned instead of passing order to release the payment to the petitioner for 1605 students, who were imparted education under ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ Scheme for the year 2007-08, rejected the claim of the petitioner. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has wrongly been denied payment for imparting education to poor children of marginalized families through ten camps/sub-centres of the two centers in Dabka and Kosi for the year 2007-08. Accordingly, impugned order dated 27.02.2009, passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed in the light of the observation made by this Court in writ petition No. 587 of 2008 (M/S) and authorities concerned are directed to make payment to the petitioner in respect of the education imparted to 1605 students under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme for the year 2007-08 within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and if any amount has already been paid the same may be deducted. (B.S.Verma, J.) 26-10-2010 S 6