B"f^r" bu ^^0^ "< ^Sl^^- p,^^ '^••?""" ^s"""^ ' 0^7 /£ LN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 6^ / Petitioner Respondents /l. 2. /3. 4. ; 5. Versus 6. ./2010 Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi, an Autonomous Body, managed by the Welfare and Health Organization, a Society, registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, having registration No. S-49245, through Dr. Gopal Singh Veermani, aged about 50 years, S/o Shri K. L. Veermani, Director, Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, R/o RZ-60, Santosh Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, 59. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretaiy, Departraent of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal (Board of Secondaiy Educatibn), through its Chairman, Perision Bada, Raipur (C.G.) Ravi Shankar University, through its Registrar, Raipur (C.G.) Guru Ghasi Das University, through its Registrar, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) Sarguja Vishvidyalaya, through its Registrar, Mohalla Darripara, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) Bastar Vishvidyalaya, through its Registrar, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, Bastar. State of N.C.T. Delhi, through Secretaiy, Department of Education, Purana Sachivalaya, Delhi. K:'' wn / 8. Director of Employment and Training, Employment Exchange, Mahila Polytechnic Bhawan, Bairan Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) 9. Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, Rajputana, Lal Bhavan, Gopalpurgaon (Timarpur) Dak Ghar Azadpur, New Delhi - 9. WRIT P^TITIONUNDjSR^ARTICUE^ 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUIT^lBLE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. IFj;^^iil^l^i;l!^^^^^;^^^S^B HIGM COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.641 OF 2010 Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Prashant Jaiswal, Sr. Advocate With Shri S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 29th day ofJuly, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25-9-2009 (Annexure P/20 page 431) whereby the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education has derecognized and cancelled the recpgnition granted to the petitioner. 3. The brieffacts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner institute was recognized by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, as is evident from Annexure P/4 serial No.10. Thereafter, on the basis of said recognition granted by the then State of Madhya Pradesh, State of Chhattisgarh also granted recognition, as is evident from Annexure P/5 under State Delhi at serial No.10 (page 243). 4. Shri Jaiswal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that there is a confusion in the name of the institution. The petitioner's institute has proper place, proper facilities and all the requisite requirements. The petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before taking extreme steps of derecognizing the institute for equalization. Shri Jaiswal referred to Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal (Manyata) Viniyam, 1994 (for short "Viniyam, 1994") wherein under clause 19 it is provided that recognition of any educational institution may be cancelled, if it is found that the required conditions are not fulfilled. It is further provided that before canceling the recognition, a show cause notice ss.' !iB' istobe given to the said eduGational iristitution and on receiptofthe response t6 the same, the order shbuld be passed. 5. Clause19oftheViniyam,1994readsasunder: "(<j"fl'H) 'irf^ Tu^cT ^t ?^T ^RT cCT •dfltll'l 5t ^TRIT t ^ W^ ^levfsRi ws\ fi[% W^Q SRT iWfEKf\ tRR ^ ipft t, ^T wft wif cf^. i^ cp^ •?( STOTs} gt Trit t aiarar SF^ ^R°rf ^ tii'^di ^t vn^v ^f t ?jt t^gvi ^r ^s srfBtcpR st^n q?r ^ra?t ii-^tii >9*iii<i q?; ^t ufP?. 'V^ fl-^ldl '^? q5^( ^ ij^ "*i'i"i eraTarr '•TlKv" Wft ^^TT ^TTT, '^ ^ f?iter uRi^'i '^fwir gM felT ^iIRIT t TTT 5^T q^ f^En^ qy^^T gt7n." 6. Shri Kachhwaha, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submit that proper opportunity of hearing by issuing show cause notice as aforestated would be afforded to the petitioner before taking decision. However, this order may not be revoked and the same may be made subject to final order passed on affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Grant of recognition or cancelleation of recognition is not for a limited period say one or two months. Recognition is granted for several academic years and, as such, if the order is not revoked, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner till show cause notice is issued for affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that no effect shall be given to the impugned order till the fresh order on affording an opportunity of hearing is passed on the issue. 8. , For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is disposed of and liberty is reserved to the respondent No.2 to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, by issuing a show cause notice affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to respond to the same and pass appropriate order after proper consideration of the material and response submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. Show cause notice shall be issued within a period oftwo weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, two weeks time is available to the petitioner to file response and on receiptof the response and other materials, if any, offered by the - petitioner, appropriate order will be passed within a period of one week thereafter. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge