SCA/2355/2002 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2355 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= LOKBHARTI KELVANI MANDAL - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS MAMTA R VYAS for Petitioner MR AJ DESAI, ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 01/11/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Trust running a Kanya Chhatralaya challenges the order SCA/2355/2002 2/6 JUDGMENT dated 31st March, 2001 passed by the Director, Developing Castes Welfare Department, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar (the Director), whereby the recognition of Shri Saraswati Kanya Chhatralaya run by the petitioner Trust has been cancelled. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 29th January, 2002 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Social Justice & Empowerment Department, whereby the order dated 31st March, 2001 passed by the Director has been confirmed. 2. The facts of the case are that, by a show cause notice dated 30th September, 2000, the petitioner Trust was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken against it in respect of certain irregularities enumerated in the said show cause notice. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed its reply dated 13th November, 2000. It appears that, after the issuance of the show cause notice, the District Social Welfare Officer had visited the Chhatralaya on 22nd November, 2000 and had noticed certain irregularities. Considering the details mentioned in the inspection report submitted by the District Social Welfare Officer, the petitioner Trust was called for personal hearing on 28th February, 2001. It appears that thereafter another inspection was carried out by the Deputy Director on 17th March, 2001, whereupon certain irregularities which are enumerated in the order dated 31st March, 2001 SCA/2355/2002 3/6 JUDGMENT were noticed. Considering the irregularities noticed during the inspection carried out on 17th March, 2001, the Director vide the impugned order dated 31st March, 2001 cancelled the recognition of the said Chhatralaya. 3. The petitioner carried the aforesaid order in appeal before the State Government and by the impugned order dated 29th January, 2002, the Deputy Secretary dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Director, which has given rise to the present petition. 4. Heard Ms.Mamta Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.A.J.Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. 5. Ms.Mamta Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, pursuant to issuance of the show cause notice, an inspection had been carried out by the District Social Welfare Officer on 22nd November, 2000, and according to the report submitted by him, the irregularities in respect of which the show cause notice had been issued were satisfied to a considerable extent. It was submitted that, while passing the impugned order dated 31st March, 2001, the Director had placed reliance upon the inspection report submitted pursuant to the visit made by the Deputy Director on 17th March, 2001. It was contended that the SCA/2355/2002 4/6 JUDGMENT petitioner had not been called upon to show cause in respect of the irregularities noticed during the said visit and as such, the impugned order was bad on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. 6. Learned advocate has also pointed out that, at the time of issuance of notice in the petition, on 18th February, 2002, ad-interim relief had been granted in terms of prayer clause 9(B), accordingly, the impugned orders had been stayed and the said interim order is operative even today. It was submitted that thereafter, the institution has been running smoothly and no major irregularities have been noticed so as to call for cancellation of recognition of the institution. It was submitted that even if this Court upholds the validity of the impugned orders, no fruitful purpose would be served by closing down a running institution when no serious irregularities have been noticed subsequently since February 2002. 7. Mr.A.J.Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents has, upon instructions of Mr.K.I.Parmar, Deputy Director, submitted that, pursuant to the order dated 12th August, 2002 passed by this Court whereby, while continuing the ad-interim relief, it was clarified that, in the meanwhile, the respondent authority may carry out surprise inspection and SCA/2355/2002 5/6 JUDGMENT submit its report, an inspection had been made. It was submitted that, during the course of subsequent inspection, some irregularities have been noticed, in respect of which minor punishments of reduction of grant have been imposed. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties as well as the averments made in the petition, it is apparent that, in view of the interim relief granted by this Court, the petitioner Trust is still running the Chhatralaya in question. Subsequently, inspections have been made and minor irregularities have been noticed, in respect of which minor punishments of reduction of grant etc. have been imposed. It is apparent that no serious irregularities calling for cancellation of recognition have been noticed thereafter. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served by closing down a running institution in respect of the irregularities committed in the year 2000. Moreover, the learned advocate is right in contending that, while passing the impugned order dated 31st March, 2001, the Director has taken into consideration the irregularities noticed during the course of inspection made on 17th March, 2001, in respect SCA/2355/2002 6/6 JUDGMENT of which no opportunity had been granted to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the learned advocate for the petitioner is right in contending that the impugned order is bad on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. 10.For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 31st March, 2001 passed by the Director, Developing Castes Welfare Department, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar and the impugned order dated 29th January 2002 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Social Justice & Empowerment Department, are hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is clarified that setting aside the impugned orders would not debar the respondent authorities from taking appropriate action in accordance with law in respect of any irregularities that may be noticed in future in the running of the said Chhatralaya. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. [HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar*