-—^!^i"^";S;-^^;^!^B ^ t/ /t\ K ^ IH THE HIGH COORT OF H&Bffia .PR&DESH AT JABALPDR MiscellaBeeus Pe-tition No, of 1993 PETZTIONER Shikshan Saaitl» lihathari fehrough Seeretary, Udit Narayan Singh, aged 46 years, son of Shalcur Shyam Sunder Singh, residsn-t of 'Eha'thari., Tahsil Sa^ti, Distrie-fc Bilaspiu;. VEssgs RESPOHDBNTS s-'?l« State of Madhya Pradesh, through Secretary, nepartmeat of school Ea-ueatioa, Vallabh Elfaawaa^ Biopal. ^2. Board o£ Higtaer Secondary i Educatioa, Madhya Pradesb j II Sbopal/ through Seeretary. j'l I 3. eontroller of Examiaatloas, Board of Secondary Educatioa, Madhya Pradesb, Bhopal. ^./ 4. eommissJLoner of Pablie Instractidas, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal* g^-S. SoiBt. Director Pabllc lastructioas, Bilaspur Dlvlsioa, Bllaspar. ^6. Bepti'tyia.reetor School Edueatloa, Bilaspur oiyisi<sa, Bilsspur. ^7. Shikshak Saaiti, 'Ehathari, ^. Tahsil Sakti, Dis-triet Biiaspui-. • • A» PETITION ITHBBR ARTICIiES 226 AND 227 OF 1HE CQNSTITfftIOiTOF"INBIA I-HC-78 vd-cq '«iqi«'q,yTnt1<l<B, fi«l<(iy<< .y..f..^i:o.b^.l^., 31T^5TVR (>jci(gq<g) 3n^?i<BTR-)i* aaiTaii^STg'Hro S^T8R^ifel3fI^?I 30,8.aOOS Thalthari thfe Shri Ashish Stmyast^ Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Sinlia, P.L, foi1 Shri H.B. Aganval, Sr. f for respondent No.2 & 3. Heard. The petitioner's case is and estabUshed a school kil Higher Secondaiy School, Tha|t respondent No.S-Board and in the goveming body of the wifhout anv show cause notit dated 23.5.1992 (Armexure petitioner and withdrew administration was shifted to Sbri Agarwal, learued Sr| petitioner inay t»e aUowed respondent No.2 and res]j> repiesentation inade by the pe| vFith law, to which leamed couj: In the ctrcustances, the| detailed representatiou to rcsd witfaia a fortnight and after No.2 shatl consider fhe sam^ objcctive order iu accordaace Utl; tiiotn'flf iiinl"*f(s'<3 •(Ri'tcix ^aiRlqsn^l v&, Advocate wifh Sint. Smita Ghai, respondent No. 1, 4, 5 & 6. ^dvocate wifh Shri P. Agarwal, Advocate tbe piat the petitioner is a registered sociely lown as Thakur Shyam Sunder Siagh . The school was duly recognized by control & luanageineiit has been. vested ^chool. However, tiie respondent-Board ;e and wittiout aay enquiry vide notice I P-1) canceUed the recognition of the irant also aad thereafter, the r^spondent No.7. Advocate for the Board submits that tlie (o inake a detailed representation. to ijiondent No.2 after considermg the ;titiond- wiU pass fiie order in accordaace tjisel for the petitioner has no objection. petitloner-societ^' is directed to make a ^ondent No.2 raisuig all flieir grievaaces •^ceipt of such representation respondent 4 MI aa objective inamier aad pass aa |wifh law after considcring atl fhe poiats XI-HG-78 OT^STtRlR'tl* aairan^sTgitira! \j-cq'«iqirt«,UI-(TI'(I<I<», R<?)my<< 3I1^?T tRq? (ljclij61<Ei) STOTW!^ftCT antST raised by the petitioner i^i opportuni^ of heamig to fhe| bv ttiis Court shaU contmue. Coimsel for (he petitio^ier counsel for the respondent-B^an With the direction to supply extra copy ofthe petition <|>ard. sbaid. the petition stands disposed of. afcrebaid 'BKiIn'Ilf iitnV^Ts'c) •(luitcit ^si^Tair^iT the represeiitatioii a33.d after giving petitioner. Till fhen uiteriru oider passed Sdl- L.C. Bhadoo