$-*IN #20 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W. P. (C) L0/2009 & CM No. 15/2009 BAL VIKAS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ... Petitioner Through: Mr. R. K. Gupta, Advocate. versus LT. GOVERNOR/ADMINISTRATOR, GNCTD & ORS ... Respondents Through: Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for R-l & 2. Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for R-3/MCD. Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate for R-4/DDA. Mr. O. P. Saxena. Advocate for R-S/Slum & JJ Deptt. THE MODEL WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (REGD) ..... Petitioner Through: N4r. R. K. Gupta, Advocate. VCTSUS LT. GOVERNOR/ADMINISTRATOR, GNCTD & ORS ... Respondents Through: Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Ms. Shyel Trehan, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. Mr. O. P. Saxena. Advocate for R-5/Slum & JJ Deptt. -ra #21 + W.P, (C) No.70/2009 & Botch . P. (c) 49s/2009 Page 7 of 6 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified > .?E r*J f' w. P. (.., 8e3/2ooe KIDS KINGDOM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ..... PCtitiONCT Through: Mr. R. K. GuPta, Advocate. VCTSUS LT. GOVERNOR/ADMINI STRATOR, GNCTD & ORS ... R-esPondents Through: Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for R-l & 2. Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. Mr. O. P. Saxena, Advocate for R-5/Slum & JJ Deptt. #23 + W. P. (O 900/2009 R.B.P.S. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY .... Petitioner Through: N4r. R. K. GuPta, Advocate. VETSUS LT. GOVERNOR/ADMINISTRATOR, GNCTD & ORS ... ResPondents Through: Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. Mr. O. P. Saxena. Advocate for R-5/Slum & JJ Deptt. #24 + w. P. (C) 902/2009 A.P.S. EDUCATION SOCOIETY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R. K. Gupta, Advocate. \-i- w.P. (C) No. 10/2009 & Bqtch Poge 2 of 6 t*j VCTSUS LT. GOVERNOR/ADMINISTRATOR, GNCTD & ORS ... Respondents Through: Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. Mr. O. P. Saxena. Advocate for R-5/Slum & JJ Deptt. AND #2s + w. P. (C) 908/2009 GOLDY PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R. K. Gupta, Advocate. VETSUS LT. GOVERNOR/ADMINISTRATOR, GNCTD & ORS ... Respondents Through: Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for P.-r &2. Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for DDA. N4r. O. P. Saxena. Advocate for R-5/Slum & JJ Deptt. CORAM: JI]STICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER' 13.05.2011 o W.P. (C) No.70/2009 & Botch Page 3 of 6 t \l- 1. The prayer in all these writ petitions is for a direction to the Respondents, i.e., Respondent No. 1 Govt. of National' Capital Territory of Delhi ('GNCTD'); Respondent No. 2, Directorate of Education; Respondent No. 3, Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD'); and Respondent No. 4, Delhi Development of Authority ('DDA') to allot to the Petitioners a plot of land in the resettlement colony in Mangolpuri/Sultanpuri/Rohini out of the land earmarked for nursery school. A further mandamus is sought for a direction to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to grant recognition in terms of Section 4 of the Delhi School Education Act,1973 and Rule 50 and 51 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. 2. These writ petitions have been adjourned from time to time for over two years to give the Petitioners an opportunity to explain to the Court "under what legal right the Petitioner has approached this Court to seek allotment of land to run the Petitioner school". Today further time was sought but declined. Even on 17th March 2011 this Court observed: "a perusal of the order sheet shor.vs that the petitioners have been seeking adjournment for the last several dates and have been avoiding to answer the pertinent queries posed to the counsel". w.P. (c) No. 10/2009 & Botch Poge 4 of 6 I a.j 3. Mr. R. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioners, referred to certain letters written to the MCD by the Petitioners in 2007 for allotment of land. However, those are not applications. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10 of 2009 (Bal Vikas Educational Society v. Lt. Governor/Administrotor), a copy of a proforma application for allotment of land has been enclosed as Annexure P6 (at Page 37 of the paper book). However, it is not clear to whom such application was submitted. Both the DDA and the MCD deny receipt of any such application. Learned counsel for the Petitioners is unable to show any right that the Petitioners may have to seek allotment of land for running a nursery school. He however refers to the counter affidavit filed by the MCD in which it is stated "the land site(s) for Primary Schools are allotted by the Education Department of the MCD". Learned counsel for the Petitioners also refers to the site plan which, according to him, shows vacant sites in the resettlement colonies which can be allotted to the Petitioners. 4. Mr. O. P. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the Slum &' JJ Deptt. categorically states that there is no land available with the MCD for allotment and denies having received any application for allotment w.P. (c) No.70/2009 & Botch Poge 5 of 6 # I -/ / of land. Both counsel for the MCD and the DDA in any event state that in terms of the DDA (Disposal of Development Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, institutional allotment can only be made by way of auction. 5. Since it is clearly stated by learned counsel for the MCD that there is no land avaiiable with it for making allotment and it is not clear whether apart from writing letters, the Petitioners ever made any formal application for allotment of land, it is not possible to issue any mandamus in that regard. In the absence of availability of any land on which the schools can be constructed, the other prayer for mandamus to grant recognition to the schools also cannot be entertained' Y-' 6. There is no merit in any of the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions and pending applications are dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. S. MURALIDHAR, J MAY l3,20tL fin w.P. (c) No.70/2009 & Botch Page 6 of 6