IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION No. 1301 of 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 46501/1999) Anusuchit Janjati Vidhyalaya Banshipur and another. ...........Petitioners. Versus The District Basic Siksha Adhikari, District Dehradun. ................Respondent. Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent. 19th March, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. This petition has been filed by a Society, which runs a School (both schools as well as the society are petitioner no. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition). The prayer in the writ petition is that the petitioners are aggrieved by the order-dated 16.10.1999 passed by the respondent, by which the recognition granted to the School was cancelled. 2. The main contention of the petitioners before this Court is that in the erstwhile Sate of U.P., at the relevant time the Basic Education was governed under the Act knwon as Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 3. Under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act, certain powers have been given to the Board i.e. Education Board (as it existed then) to withdraw the recognition, which has been granted to the School. Section 12 of the Act reads as under: 2 “12. Control over Basic Schools-(1) The Director may, from time to time, inspect or cause to be inspected any basic school, [***] and also the records and proceedings of the local body concerning or connected with the discharge of the functions of the local body in respect of basic education. (2) The Director may direct the management of a basic school to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. (3) If the agreement of a basic school fails to comply with any direction made under sub-section (2) the Director may, after, considering the explanation, or representation, if any, given or made by management, refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition of such school. (4) On receipt of a recommendation under sub-section in respect of any basic school, the Board may withdraw the recognition of that school.]” 4. There is another provision in the Act, by which both State Government and the Board can delegate its power. Section 14 of the Act reads as follows: “14. Power to delegate.-(1) The State Government may delegate any of its powers under this Act to the Director or to any other officer or authority subordinate to it subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified. (2) The Board may be general or special order direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act, except the power to make regulations may also be exercised by its Chairman or by such Committee or officer, in such cases and subject to such conditions, if as may be specified therein.” 5. The contention of the petitioners is that the impugned order, whereby the recognition has been cancelled has been passed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Dehradun, who does not have the power to derecognize institute as the power solely vests with the Board. It is true that these powers can be delegated, but it has been stated that such powers have not been 3 delegated to the Zila Basic Shksha Adhikari and hence the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. 6. A curious fact in the present matter is that even after ten years of filing of the writ petition, which was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad way back in the year, 1999 and has subsequently been transferred to this Court and after the appointed date, the counter affidavit has not seen the light as yet. It is a deplorable state of affairs and this Court has observed that such default on the part of the State Government is a recurring phenomena. Nothing more needs to be said on this aspect at this stage, however, the case must be decided now on the basis of unrebutted averments in the writ petition. 7. From the perusal of the averments as well as on the basis of law cited before this Court, it appears that the impugned order dated 16.10.1999 is without jurisdiction and therefore, cannot be allowed to stand. The order- dated 16.10.1999 is, therefore, quashed. It is, however, made clear that if the institute or the petitioners, as the case may be, has committed any default or any breach of condition or have violated any law, the competent authority (as there is no Basic Education Board presently in the State of Uttarakhand) after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners may pass any appropriate orders on the derecognition of the Institute. This liberty, the competent authority will always have. 8. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 4 19.3.2009 Rathour