IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 33 of 2010 Shakeel Ahmed …..…….. Petitioner Versus (1) State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Education, Dehradun. (2) Collector/District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. (3) Director, Rehabilitation, New Tehri. (4) Tehri Hydro Development Corporation, Bagirath Bhawan (Top Terrace), Bhagirathipuram, Tehri Garhwal through Chairman and Managing Director. (5) District Education Officer, Tehri Garhwal. …………. Respondents Coram:- Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, Chief Justice Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge Present: Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 5. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent No.4. Date of Decision: 29.04.2010 J.S. Khehar, C.J. The petitioner is the President of the Tin Shed Visthapit Sangharsh Samiti, New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal (hereinafter referred to as the TSVSS). According to the petitioner, the TSVSS is a voluntarily organization working for the benefit and welfare of those who had to migrate from the old Tehri city, and who are presently residing in the new Tehri city. All the members of the TSVSS are allegedly residing in tin sheds allotted to them. 2. In order to appreciate the background in which migration from the old Tehri city took place, it will be necessary to place on record the fact, that the Central Government as well as composite State of Uttar Pradesh decided to construct the Tehri Dam for setting up of a Hydro Development Project in the year 1986. It is the establishment of this project, which resulted in the forced migration of the erstwhile residents of the old Tehri city to the new Tehri city. The project of rehabilitation 2 was vested in the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the THDC) in the year 1989. After the old Tehri city came to be submerged under water, four Primary Schools functioning in the old Tehri city allegedly, having their own buildings and infrastructure, were also to be shifted to the new Tehri city. The particulars of the aforesaid four schools are being narrated hereunder:- (i) Rajkiya Prathmik Vidyalaya, Semal Tappad (hereinafter referred to as “School A”), (ii) Rajkiya Prathmik Vidyalaya, Bhadu-ki-Magri (hereinafter referred to as “School B”), (iii) Rajkiya Prathmik Vidyalaya, Purana Darbaar (hereinafter referred to as “School C”), and (iv) Rajkiya Prathmik Vidyalaya, Purana Motor Adda (hereinafter referred to as “School D”) 3. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Tehri Garhwal addressed a letter dated 11.08.1999 to the Deputy General Manager of the THDC stating therein, that as per the decision recorded in a meeting held on 08.06.1999 all the aforesaid four schools (referred to in the foregoing paragraph) were to be shifted to the new Tehri city from the session 1999. He accordingly requested to the Deputy General Manager (Rehabilitation), THDC to provide space and buildings for shifting of the aforesaid schools. 4. In furtherance of the request made by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Tehri Garhwal, “School A” was shifted to new Tehri on 03.09.2002. Tin shed Nos. 130 and 131 were allotted to “School A” for the purpose of running the school. “Schools B, C and D” were not allotted any space or building in new Tehri city, and therefore, continued to be functioning in old Tehri city till the year 2004. In the year 2004, when water started flowing into the old Tehri city, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehri directed for shifting “Schools B, C and D” to new Tehri city. For the aforesaid purpose, Tin shed No. 201 was temporarily provided to “Schools B, C and D”. In other words, all the three schools were required to be run from one single tin shed. 5. The Additional District Education Officer (Basic) wrote a letter to the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Tehri Garhwal stating therein, that all the above three referred schools which have been shifted from 3 the old Tehri to new Tehri could be established and operated in Godmou, Gram Panchayat, Jaspur, Chamund, Gram Panchayat Pipali and Shiv Mandir, Bourari Stadium and requested for the establishment of the shifted schools on these suggested places. 6. It is the case of the petitioner, that despite the repeated efforts made by Additional District Basic Education Officer (Basic), Tehri Garhwal, no permanent establishment/building/space was provided to run the said schools at new Tehri city. It is submitted, that instead of providing the required allotment, the District Education Officer, Tehri Garhwal issued an order dated 22.12.2009 directing that “Schools B, C and D” be transferred to the nearby Rajkiya Prathmik Vidyalaya, Pipali. It was also directed, that the teachers earlier engaged in “Schools B, C and D” be attached with other schools. It is submitted that the schools, where the erstwhile teachers of “Schools B, C and D” had been attached, are at quite a distance from new Tehri city. In this behalf it is submitted, that the said distance varies from 32 kms. to 90 kms. 7. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner as a cause in public interest, has sought a direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 22.12.2009 (referred to above), as also a subsequent order dated 13.04.2010 passed by the Block Education Officer, whereby teachers of “Schools B, C and D” have been attached to other schools, and whereupon, “Schools B, C and D” have impliedly been closed. In sum and substance, the prayer made by the petitioner is, that the responsibility vested in the THDC to provide space and accommodation to all those who came to be displaced from the old Tehri city, rather than being fulfilled, has been grossly violated by not only closing the schools which were earlier in existence in the old Tehri city, but also by rendering the students earlier enrolled in “Schools B, C and D” without adequate educational facilities. 8. Though the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be attractive at first blush, if the documents appended to the writ petition are closely scrutinized, it emerges that the writ petition is wholly frivolous, and has been filed for extraneous consideration, possibly aimed at the continuation of the teachers who 4 were posted in “Schools B, C and D” in new Tehri city itself. This inference can be drawn by us on account of a variety of reasons. Firstly, that all the students of “Schools B, C and D” have been attached to other schools in new Tehri city. Secondly, the other schools in new Tehri city, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, are located within a distance of 1 to 1-1/2 kms., and as such, would not at all prejudice the students who were enrolled in “Schools B, C and D”. Thirdly, a communication dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure 12 with the writ petition) reveals, that there were only 3 students on the rolls of “School B”, thirteen students on the rolls of “School C” and 2 students on the rolls of “School D”. We are of the view, that the functioning of the aforesaid schools as independent institutions was clearly unjustified. From the inference drawn by us, hereinabove, it is apparent that the instant writ petition has been filed for extraneous consideration and not in public interest. We had, in the first instance, considered imposing costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner, for filing the instant frivolous petition. However, taking into consideration the young age of the learned counsel, and also his lack of experience, we are of the view that imposition of costs in the instant writ petition may not serve the ends of justice. We have, therefore, refrained from imposing costs. 9. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. ) ( J.S. Khehar, C.J. ) 29.04.2010 29.04.2010 P. Singh