IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No.3919 of 2010 & 5221 of 2010. Decided on: June 23,2011. CWP No.3919 of 2010: Sandy Ram …….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …….Respondents. CWP No.5221 of 2010: Bhagat Ram and others …….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others …….Respondents. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner(s): Mr.Devender Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.3919 of 2010. Mr.Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP no.5221 of 2010. For the respondents: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents/State. Mr. Devender Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4 in CWP No.5221 of 2010. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.(oral): This order shall dispose of both the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. CWP No.3919 of 2010, titled Sandy Ram versus State of H.P. and others, has been filed by the petitioner challenging Annexure P-6, order passed by the Headmaster transferring the School from Village Barkal to place Raksha. CWP No.5221 of 2010, titled Bhagat Ram and others versus State of H.P. and others, has been filed by the petitioners challenging 2 the notification Annexure P-2, dated 29.5.2008,transferring the School to Village Barkal. 2. Replies to the petitions filed by the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On 31.8.2010, a Division Bench of this court passed the following order: “On 10th August, 2010 in CWP No.3919 of 2010, we passed the following order: “There will be a direction to respondents to continue the Middle School at Barkal for the time being in terms of notification Annexure P-4 and teachers will be provided at Barkal within two days. However, we make it clear that the pendency of the writ petition or the interim order above shall not stand in the way of respondent No.1 from considering the issue afresh with notice to all the parties concerned. We further make it clear that in the event of any decision being taken in the process as indicated above, before implementation of the decision, orders will be sought from this Court.” We are informed that steps are now being taken by the first respondent for considering the issue afresh with notice to all parties concerned. There will be a direction to the first respondent to finalize the proceedings, as above, within a period of one month from today.” 5. Another order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 28.2.2011 as under: 3 “Learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP No.3919 of 2010 will explore the possibility of donating the land and building to the Government so as to have a new school at Barkal.” 6. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, a report has now been placed on record by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P. by way of a letter addressed to the Advocate General alongwith a factual report submitted by the Director (Elementary Education). It appears that the Principal Secretary (Education) had not complied the order passed by this Court in which direction was given to consider the matter afresh after notice to all the parties concerned. The report now sought to be placed on record under the signatures of the Principal Secretary (Education) is enclosed by a chronological history of the case in Hindi and the person who allegedly submitted the report, namely, the Director (Elementary Education), his designation or name is not mentioned therein. He has submitted a factual report of the facts, but no conclusion has been given by the Principal Secretary (Education) as to where the school should continue or whether he has made a report to the Education Minister/Cabinet for taking appropriate decision in regard to the issue. 7. Therefore, the State Government is given time to consider this question in regard to shifting of the school or as to whether the school should be run at the original place. This question shall be considered 4 by the State Government and the decision shall be taken and accordingly conveyed to both the parties. The decision, as above, be taken as far as possible within four months from today. However, the parties are at liberty to challenge the decision of the Government in case the decision is not taken in public interest. The stay order passed by the Division Bench shall remain in operation till the decision, as above, is taken. 8. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. Dasti copy. June 23, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.