IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 587 (M/S) of 2008 Umed Singh Rawat Indu Samiti, Through its Manager and Secretary Sandeep Rawat, S/o Shri Prem Singh Rawat, Having Registered office at Village Basai, Post Office Peerumadara, Ramnagar, District Nainital. …………………..Petitioner. Versus (1) State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, School Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. (2) State Project Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Sahastradhara Road, Mayur Vihar, District Dehradun. (3) District Project Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, District Nainital. (4) District Magistrate, Nainital, District Nainital, Uttarakhand. ………..……..Respondents. Sri Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the Petitioner. Sri K.P. Upadhyaya, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.02.2008, issued by respondent no. 3, copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby District Project Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Nainital, has stopped the payment of the 2 sub-centers / camps run by the petitioner under Education Guarantee Scheme / Alternative and Innovative Education. A further mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to release the payment of 1605 students for running camps / centres for the year 2007-08. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on their behalf. (3) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a Non Government Organisation (for short NGO), which is registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner-NGO is devoted in imparting education to the children of marginalized families in unorganized sector. It is further stated that the World Bank started a project in the year 2001-02 for spreading education and literacy among poor sections of society, who are below poverty line, which is popularly known as ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’. The State Government of Uttarakhand identified certain areas including Dabka and Kosi, where the NGOs are required to educate the children of unorganized sector under aforesaid scheme. The petitioner, who made an application under the scheme was permitted and directed to educate the children in unorganized sector of Dabka and Kosi, initially for the year 2004-05. Since rivers Dabka and Kosi are spread in a long area, the petitioner had to open ten sub-centres / camps to educate the children. The imparting of education under aforesaid scheme was run successfully and 3 petitioner was paid the remuneration at the rate of Rs.845/- per student and allowed to work for the year 2006-07. Thereafter, at the same rate he was allowed to work for the year 2007-08. As stated in the writ petition, number of students under ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ increased to 1605 in the year 2006-07 in the ten sub-centres / camps of the two centres, namely, Dabka and Kosi. It is stated in the writ petition that from time to time the education authorities verified the centres and the education was imparted to the children. However, for the reasons best known to the respondents a letter dated 29.02.2008, was issued by District Project Officer, Nainital, stating that the petitioner could have run its centres only at two places and not in ten sub-centres. The petitioner’s allegation is that for last three years, the education was being imparted in sub-centres as such the respondents have illegally withheld the payment for the year 2007-08. (4) The respondent no. 3 has filed his counter affidavit, in which it is admitted that the petitioner is a registered Society, who runs a NGO. It is also admitted that the petitioner was allowed to run two centres, namely, Dabka and Kosi for imparting education to the poor children under the ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ scheme. However, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had no sanction for running ten sub-centres. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner cannot run ten sub-centres without approval from the authorities concerned, as such the petitioner is not entitled for release of the amount sought by him for the year 2007-08. 4 (5) Admittedly, the petitioner is a NGO, who was given sanction to run two centres in Dabka and Kosi to impart education to poor children of marginalized families under ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ from the year 2004-05. It is also true that initially the expected number of children was 127, however, considering the success of the scheme it appears that the petitioner was allowed to run the centres for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08. The only disputed question is that whether the petitioner was entitled to run the education centres in ten sub-centres / camps or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection argued that Dabka and Kosi are rivers in District Nainital and its bank are spread over a long area. The families who were working as labourers in connection with mining work, their children were getting education through sub-centres and it was not possible to educate all the children in two centres in view of the large area of the two sides of rivers. There were no fixed centres to educate the children. Wherever, the children were available in Dabka and Kosi the education was imparted to them by providing ten camps / sub-centres of the two centres, for which the petitioner was given the sanction. It is further contended that there was no rider or bar, which required petitioner to educate the children under single roof. In this connection attention of this Court is drawn to annexure 1 to the rejoinder affidavit, which is copy of letter dated 3rd January 2006, issued by Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Nainital, which also verified that in two centres run by the petitioner consisting of ten sub-centres / camps, and 5 the number of students was 1349 and accordingly payment was made to the petitioner in the year 2005- 06. Apart from this, annexure 4 to the writ petition, which is copy of letter dated 31st August 2004, issued by State Project Director, Dehradun, shows that in the two centres, namely, Dabka and Kosi in which number of expected students was 127, in the year 2004-05 total number of 813 students got education as is apparent from the schedule filed with the said letter. Annexure 5 to the writ petition, further shows that in the year 2007-08, the education authorities themselves verified number of students 622 under Alternative and Innovative Education centre Dabka and 983 students in the similar centre at Kosi, who were given education in 4 and 6 sub centres respectively (in total 10 sub centres). Annexure 6 to the writ petition shows that from time to time the information and statements were duly submitted to the education authorities. In these circumstances, this Court finds that what the petitioner has stated that he was in fact allowed to run two centres in ten sub- centres / camps, keeping in mind the terrain where the education was to be imparted, appears to be correct. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the order dated 14.04.2008, passed by District Magistrate, Nainital, shows that the petitioner was running the centre without any authority. I have gone through the said order, copy of which is annexure CA- 4 to the counter affidavit. The District Magistrate, Nainital, appears to have ignored the relevant documents which indicate that the petitioner-NGO was running two centres through ten sub-centres / camps 6 and the education given to the students of poor families was duly verified by the education authorities. (6) Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, as discussed above, this Court feels that the petitioner has wrongly been denied the payment for imparting education to poor children of marginalized families through ten camps / sub-centres of the two centres in Dabka and Kosi, for the year 2007-08. Accordingly, to that extent, impugned order dated 29.02.2008, passed by District Project Officer, Nainital, and the order dated 14.04.2008, passed by District Magistrate, Nainital, are hereby quashed. The authorities are directed to take a decision afresh relating to payment to the petitioner in respect of the education imparted under ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’ scheme for the year 2007-08, in the light of the observations made above. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.17.12.2008 NS 7