// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2733/2007 Mahipal Singh S/o Shri Maru Ram and Others Versus State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 10.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri R.P. Garg, Counsel for petitioners Shri M.C. Gupta, Additional Government Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 Shri Ajeet Bhandari, Counsel for respondent No.3 Shri A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Kinshuk Jain, Counsel for respondent No.4 #### By the Court:- Admit. Shri M.C. Gupta, Additional Government Counsel, appears for respondents No.1 and 2; Shri Ajeet Bhandari, Advocate, appears for the respondent No.3 and Shri A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Advocate, appears for the respondent No.4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners prefer this writ petition with a prayer that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the State Government not to grant permission to respondent No.3 Baijnath Sriram Saboo Shishu Mandir Society (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Society') to close down the School // 2 // i.e. Baijnath Sriram Saboo Senior Secondary School, Pilani (for short, 'the School'); and that the Government may be directed to appoint an Administrator on the School by invoking the provisions of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act of 1989'). A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and, in response thereto, the respondent No.3 has filed reply to the writ petition, wherein it is contended that they have simply written a letter dated 21st March, 2007 (Annexure-R-3/2) to the Principal Secretary and the Secretary of the Education Department as well as the Director, Department of the Secondary Education, Bikaner, with a request to take over the School by the Government and further that in case the State Government is not able to take any decision by 30th March, 2007, the Society would be forced to take recourse to closure of the School under Section 14 of the Act . The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the writ petition was preferred on the basis of apprehension arose out of the letter dated 2nd April, 2007 (Annexure-8), written by the Deputy Secretary to the // 3 // Government to the Commissioner, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner, informing that the Manager has served a letter dated 21st March, 2007 to take over the management of the School otherwise they will close down the School from 3rd April, 2007. He, therefore, submits that from the language written in this letter, it is clear that the School will be closed down and, in these circumstances, the present writ petition has been preferred with the aforesaid prayer. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contended that their letter dated 21st March, 2007 has wrongly been interpreted by the authority concerned, and that interpretation in that regard taken in the letter dated 2nd April, 2007 is not clear. He submits that he has annexed a copy of the letter dated 21st March, 2007 (Annexure-R-2/3), from which it is clear that they have made a request to the State Government to take over the School and in case a decision is not taken in this regard by 30th March, 2007 then they would be forced to take recourse to the closure of the School under Section 14 of the Act of 1989 and till now they have not served any notice under Section 14 of the Act. He further submits that as per sub- rule (v) of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Non // 4 // Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (for short, 'the Rules of 1993), a full academic year's notice is required to be given in writing, therefore, at this stage, the apprehension of the petitioner about closure of the School is not correct and the present writ petition is premature and the same is liable to be dismissed as such. So far as prayer regarding appointment of Administrator is concerned, the petitioner should move the State Government in this regard by way of representation, instead of making the prayer to this Court directly. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the document annexed with the writ petition and reply thereto filed by the respondents. A letter dated 2nd April, 2007 (Annexure- 8), was written by the Deputy Secretary to the Commissioner on the basis of the letter/notice dated 21st March, 2007, written by the respondent No.3 Society to the Principal Secretary and the Secretary, Education Department and the Director of the Department of Secondary Education, Bikaner. A copy of the aforesaid letter has been annexed as Annexure- R-3/2, wherein following prayer was made:- // 5 // “It is, therefore, prayed that the Baijnath Sriram Saboo Senior Secondary School may be taken over by the State Government. However, if the State Government is not able to take any decision by 30th March, 2007, the Baijnath Sriram Saboo Shishu Mandir Society would be forced to take recourse to closure of School under Section 14 of the Act.” The aforesaid prayer makes it clear that a notice was given to take over the School itself but no notice under Section 14 of the Act was given for closure of the Institution/ School. In these circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner that the School will be closed down and the Government may be restrained from according sanction for closure of the School is not tenable at this stage. A recognized Institution can be closed only in accordance with Section 14 of the Act of 1989, which reads as under:- “14. Closure of recognised institutions.- (1) No recognised institution or its class or the teaching of any subject therein shall be closed without a notice in writing to the Competent Authority. It shall have to be shown that adequate arrangements have been made for the continuance of teaching of the students for the entire remaining period of study for which the students had been admitted or for the refund of the remaining fees, if any, paid by the students. // 6 // (2) The period of notice under sub- section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed and different periods of notice may be prescribed for different classes of institutions having regard to the period of each course of study.” Rule 10 (v) of the Rules of 1993 relates to the period of notice for the purpose of Section 14 of the Act of 1989, which also reads as under:- “10.(v) The educational institution or any of its faculties, subject, course, class or section, shall not be closed down or downgraded without atleast one full academic year's notice in writing as envisaged under section 14 of the Act to the department.” From the documents annexed with the writ petition and the reply thereto, it is clear that the Management of the respondent No.3 Society has not served any notice under Section 14 of the Act of 1989, therefore, question for grant of relief, as prayed for, in the writ petition about direction to the State Government does not arise at this stage. So far as another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner about appointment of Administrator over the School is concerned, the petitioner may make a suitable representation before the appropriate authority // 7 // making out a case for the same and in case the same is filed then the State Government will consider the same in accordance with the law. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//