^ c^' m IN THE HIGH GOORT OF .JODICATOKfi AT BfIASPUR (G. G.) W. P. No.. :.U2^3 ../2004 BETITIONER ^ .^: .-^1"" '.^^y'' v ^^ !!l;;ii1:!^F?':'7;i^:ra'.i@^!iK;3;3.';^i^^^B^^S,^?is,iSgf^.^gg£-f® Bharat Ratna Dr.Babasahab Ambedkar Shikshan Sansfha (a registered society under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Soeiety ^"1Registrikaran AdhiniYam,' t5;T, ' 1973 vide registratioh no.. 207/Motipur • RajnandgaQn (C.G.) With office at 124 EWS, Padamnabhpur, Dyrg (C.G.) fhroygh President ; Bhausahab Bhimrao . : • . Khobragarhe aged about-53 years S/0 LaCe Sbrr Kashinath Khoparagarhe R/0 124 EWS Padmnabhpur, Durg (Chhattisgarh) ', VERSOS State of Chhattisgarh ' Through the Secretary Department of School Education D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur : (Chhattisgarh)' ; Commissibner ^ ; Schoot'Education, Gbvernment ofChHat6isgaF& Raipur (Chhat-fcisgarh )"'•,.;, C5> 3. Collector, Rajnandgaon / ( Ghhattisgarh) 4. District Education Officer Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) / / N.K. Panchbhave Principal Government Higher:Seeondary School, Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon(Chhattisgarh) D.S.R. Sharma .- Assisfgnt Block Deyelopment Education Officer,'Dongarh .Dlstrict Rajnandgaon(Chhattisgarh) •-s^'.-, 3^ 7. / FETITION UNDER ARTICLE Chhattisgarh Board pf Secondary Education • through the Secretary Pehson Bada^ Byron Bazar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) . 6 OF THE CQNSTI'I'OTICtN OF INDIA FOR ISSUftNCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS ' TO MANDflMUS AND CERTIORftfiI AND FOR OIHER SUITKBI.E WRITS AND DIKECTIONS:- tl iM. s^{, /y~ ^^ :tR*r^<* ^^^ !SaaescS: :J..: J.: n .::ti- 1. PARTICUIARS OF THE PETItIONER: As stated above in the cause title 2 . PARTICUIARS OF THE RESPCaTOENTS : As stated above in the cause title iil !!!i!;;;ltT- "•:'i^:^Tig!^^S5K3^i!^;5^i-E^s^^sSS®fl^iS:^a?;s^<; ^R^ 4.^'-^0/0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar-Sinha, J. W.P.No.1123 of 2004 Bharat Ratna Dr. Babasahab Ambedkar Shikshan Sanstha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others JUDGMENT Post for Judgment:/L/02/201 Q Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. PETITIONER .*.*•'- W.P.No.1123of2004 Bharat Ratna Dr. Babasahab Ambedkar Shikshan Sanstha (a registered society under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 vide registration no. 207/Motipur Rajnandgaon (C.G.) With ofllce at 124 EWS, Padamnabhpur, Durg (C.G.) through President Bhausahab Bhimrao Khobragarhe aged about 53 years S/o Late Shri Kashinath Khopragarhe R/o 124 EWS Padmnabhpur, Durg (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of ,Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of School Education D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Commissioner School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Collector, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 4. District Education Officer Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 5. N.K. Panchbhave Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon (phhattisgarh) 6. D.S.R. Sharma Assistant Block Development Education Officer, Dongarh District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 7. Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education through the Secretary Penson Bada, Byron Bazar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Writ PetitionunderArticle226ofthe Constitution of India) ';lfi^iyy;t*'att '%. 'e s '•;ff''/' 's'-^ ~t W.P.No. 1123of2004 ADpearance: Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate forthe petitioner. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 to4. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for respondents 5 & 7. JUDGMENT (^-.02.2010) Following judgment of the Court was delivered Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. by (1) The petitioner-society is running an Educational Institution namely Dr. Ambedkar, HigherSecondarySchool, Motipur, Tehsil Motipur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Respondent No.4 i.e. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, issued the impugned order dated 12.2.2004 (Annexure- P/12) against the petitioner-society stating therein thaton" account of certain irregularities committed by the Institution, the recognition of the Institution is being withdrawn after completion of the Education Session 2003-2004. (2) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order on two grounds, i.e. the facts relating to irregularities committed by the Institution are wrong and no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner before passing the said order. (3) Even after giving many opportunities, the State and other respondents, except respondent No.5, have not filed their return. Respondent No.5 has contended that according to the provisions of Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal. (Maniyata) Viniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations 1994)such action can be taken by the concerned authority of the State. However nothing has been pleaded with \/ •^ l- W.P.NO. 1123 of 2004 regard to show that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and the impugned order was passed by the Board. (4) Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He referred to the provisions of Rule 32 contained in M.P. & C.G. Shiksha Sanhita. (5) On the other hand, Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 5 & 7 and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/respondents 1 to 4, opposed these arguments and supported the impugned order passed bythe District EducationOfficer. (6) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe writ petition. (7) Rule 32 of M.P. & C.G. Shiksha Sanhita deals with the provisions for Recognition. Clause 13 to Clause 18 of this Rule deal with the relevant provisions relating to de-recognition of an Educational Institution. They are quoted as under:- "13. If the Head of the Education Department is of opinion that any institution recognized by the Board has by reasonof deterioration ceased to meet thlerequirements ofthe Board, he shall make a report of the same to the Board. On receipt of this report, the Board may institute such enquiry as it thinks fit.the reportof the enquiry will be submitted to the Board which will take it into consideration at its next meeting and inform the institution of its decision through the Head of the Education Department. 14. In any case in which the Board may decide that action is necessary upon the report, it will first callupQn the institution, through the Head of the Education Departmentto show cause why such action should not be taken. / _<s:»»"as^ W.P.No.1123 of2004 15. No action shall be taken by the Board on any report by the Head ofthe Education Department without first giving the institution concerned an opportunity of making any representation it may wish to make, through the Head of the Education Department, to the Board. 16. The Board shall, if satisfied that the institution is no longer fit for recognition, direct the Secretary to issue a warning to theGovernment Body, through the_Head of the Education Department that unless within a period fixed by the Board the institution removed the defect or defects, to which attention has been called, itwill be struck offthe listof recognized institutions, or that recognition will be withdrawn in one or more optional subjects. The Board shall have power to extend from to time the period to fixed. 17. If within the time fixed by the Board or within such further time as may be allowed by it, the institution fails to satisfy the Board that it isconforming to its requirements the Board shall strike the institution of the list of recognized institutions, or shall withdraw recognition in one or more optional subjects. 18. The Board may, at to subsequent date after report by such person or persons as it deems fit, reinstate an institution on the list of recognized institutions, or if recognition was withdrawn in one or more optional subject, restore to it the privilege of preparing candidates therein." (8) Clause 19 ofthe Regulation 1994 dealing with the provisions of de- recognition reads as under:- "(s^N) ^ Tp'scT ?pt ^r iin ^r OTrapr ?t uirer t f^; ^ ^S^!) WW! ^RT 'i:lu®cT SRT T1P^IT H^T ^ TP}t,' 'OT Wft ?raf ^ yr q^r ^ siwr^ ?t ^ t SfaTcTT 3T%I WW ^ •qT;?mT ^t uTRT •itf t ^T W^S ^ ?f? SltoR ?t7H f^ ^?(cA ^qT^RTT mM cR ^t wf^ l TR^ ^qFZRlT ^ ^ ^ 1;^ "cpRDT ERlTSlt ^itf^T" uIT$t ^;TT ?t7H 1 ?rf^ cpl^ Rlf^d yfdcl^ ^R£|T gRT f^TT ^RIT t ^r ^T ^ {NR ^FTT ?tTTT : q^ ?T? ift, ^; ^T fl^R ^t TfFqw ^ ^ WW ^TWT ^ W5Tf ^t T^ Tn? ^ sra^ ^t ^n^ft ^7 ^ wsj ^t f^ft sr^ TfT"E W^ ^gf&R? Wce[T ^ g?(5T ^ ^ I" (9) A perusal of the provisions quoted (supra) make it clear that the recognition of an Educational Institution can be withdrawn in the manner indicated above and a due opportunity of hearirig has to be given to the ^fsWSS^. '^-, .;••?'.-" /€ 11 c§BBSB"il'l ^. ^/' l<'^,y.^s" \iatti W.P.No. 1123of2004 concerned Institution after giving it show cause notice after considering the reply submitted by the Institution, ifany, in this regard. (10) It is a settled principle of law that if a particular provision has been enacted by the Legislature for doing a particular act, in a particular manner, the said act shall be done in accordance with the particular provisions meant for it and not by any other strange device for the same, because in that situation any such act which goes against the specified provision would be without authority of taw because the law has provided an authority for it. (11) In the present case, no record has been brought by the respondents to show that either the action was taken under the aforesaid provisions or it was taken cby the Board. The impugned order has been signed by the DistriGt Education Officer and it only contains an endorsement as "^R? TI5t^T gRT Sfj^RiJ". (12) In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice as also the procedure laid down for the same. Therefore, the impugned order has to bequashed. (13) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.2.2004 (Annexure-P/12) is quashed. However, it shall be open to the concerned authorities that if so advised, they may initiate appropriate proceeding in accordance with law for de-recognition of the petitioner's Institution. (14) There shall be no order as to cost. Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge