1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2149/2006 The Deaf and Dumb Educational Industrial Training Institute, Chandrapur ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and Others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A. S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. B. H. Dangre, Additional Govt. Pleader for respondents. CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 27 th NOVEMBER, 2008 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. The parties have filed Minutes of order. It is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Order in terms of Minutes “X”. 3. The Minutes require this Court to decide whether during the period from 03.09.2003 to 10.02.2004, Certificate of Registration of the petitioner was current and, therefore, whether because of that the petitioner is entitled to be paid grants for that period. Perusal of provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and 2 Full Participation) Act, 1995, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, shows that Section 53 lays down for revocation of certificate granted to an institution. It empowers the competent authority to revoke the certificate for the reasons, which are mentioned in Section 53. Section 53 (2) of the Act provides that where a certificate in respect of an institution is revoked, such an institution shall cease to function from the date of such revocation. Proviso to section 53(2) of the Act, however, lays down that when the order of revocation is appealable and an appeal against the order of revocation is filed within the appeal period then the order of revocation will operate from the date on which it is upheld in appeal. 4. In our opinion, the corollary is, if an order of revocation is appealable and appeal is preferred within the period of limitation, the order of revocation shall remain suspended while the appeal is pending. In case the appeal is rejected, the order of revocation will take effect from the date of rejection of appeal and if there is any other order than 3 upholding the order of revocation is passed then the period will be governed by the order that may be passed by the competent authority. 5. In the present case, it is common ground that the order of revocation has not been upheld. In our opinion, therefore, in the absence of any decision of the competent authority in relation to how the period during which the appeal was pending is to be treated, it will have to be assumed that the revocation did not take effect during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, the Certificate of Registration of the petitioner was current during the period from 03.09.2003 to 10.02.2004. So far as the question whether the petitioner is entitled to be paid grants is concerned, in our opinion, that may be governed by the terms on which the grants are released. Accordingly, if the petitioner institution becomes entitled to grants because the Certificate of Registration was current, the petitioner is entitled to grants and if not the petitioner will not be entitled 4 to any grants and that question will have to be decided by the competent Authority. However, the competent authority shall take this decision as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six weeks from today. The petition is, therefore, disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE kahale