IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 368 of 2008 (M/S) Master Gurvijay Singh, Through his father Sri Gurjeet Singh, R/o 109 A/D Green Belt Park, Jammu, District Jammu. …….. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India. through Secretary, Human Resources, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman, Indian Council of Secondary Education (ICSE), Pragati House, 3rd Floor, 47-48 Nehru Place, New Delhi. 3. The Principal, Welham Boy’s School, 5 Circular Road, Dehradun-248 001, (Uttarakhand). 4. The Chairman, Board of Directors, Welham Boys School, C/o 5 Circular Road, Dehradn-248 001, (Uttarakhand). …….. Respondents Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. On 13th December, 2007, the Principal, Welham Boys School, respondent No. 3 herein, sent a communication to the father of the petitioner requesting him to withdraw the petitioner from the School because, as the contents of this letter would reveal, the petitioner had indulged in conduct and activities, which could not be condoned. On the same day, the Principal sent another communication to the father of the petitioner, in which it was mentioned that since he has failed to withdraw the petitioner from the School, the petitioner was expelled from the School with immediate effect. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition in this Court invoking this Court’s extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the prayer part of the writ petition, the following reliefs have been claimed: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 to take action against respondent no. 3 and to direct the respondent no. 3 to withdraw the expulsion order dated 13/12/2007 and also direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 who will instruct the respondent no. 3 to permit the son of the petitioner to reappear in the subject sin which he have been declared fail. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner.” Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 have been described in the cause title of the writ petition as under: “1. Union of India through Secretary, Human Resources, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman, Indian Council of Secondary Education (ICSE), Pragati House, 3rd Floor, 47-48 Nehru Place, New Delhi.” No provision of law was brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner, whereby it could be demonstrated or held that either respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2 has any control, power or jurisdiction qua the School in question or its Principal, whereby, in exercise of any such power control or jurisdiction, these two respondents or either of them could issue a direction qua the School or its Principal to withdraw the expulsion order dated 13th December, 2007 and re-induct the petitioner in the School. Admittedly, the School is a private institution, it being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is not receiving any grant or grant-in-aid from either the Central Government or the State Government. The School by itself, therefore, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, because respondents Nos. 1 & 2 have not been shown to be possessed of any power, control, authority or jurisdiction qua the School or its Principal with respect to the withdrawal of the expulsion order or with respect to issuing a direction for re-induction or re-admission of the petitioner in the School, this writ petition is held to be totally non-maintainable and, on this ground alone, is dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs. (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 24.03.2008 G