W 9M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH z BILASPUR Writ Pctition (C) No. 2173 of 2009 Petitioner Puri Industrial Training Cemg‘a, B'hjlai through its Dixector of training Satish Pun', S/o Late Rameshwar Puri, aged about 44 years, R/o Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Special Secretary, Technical Education Manpower Employment, Department of Science 8r. Technology, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). Director, Employment 6n Training, Directorate, Employment 8r, Training, Chhattisgarh, Bayran Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Joint Director, Directorate, Employment 85 Training, Chhattisgarh, Bayran Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Versus Collector, Durg, District Dur‘g (CG) 5. 4. Secretary, State Board of Examination, Chhattisgarh, Directorate, Employment , 8E Training, Cllhattisgahr, Raipur,‘§ District Raipur(CG) Joint Director, Industrial Training Institute, Zonal OEice, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. L‘» o R D E R {new}: (Passed on this 1§th dayof July, 2009) / k . Heard. The petitioner - Training Center seeks a writ/direction to the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to issue registration numbers to the students, studying in the petitioner Training Center, admitted to ‘Fitter Trade’ for the session August 2007 — July, 2009 and \ further to permit the students to appear in the A11 India Trade \ \ \ \ \k \€§‘° Test, conducted by the National Council Vocational Training (NCV’I‘), to be held in the month ofJuly, 2009. Th6 petitioner - Training Center is an education society registered under the provisions of the Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The petitioner admitted 91 students to the Fitter Trade for training with the prior approval of the respondentslauthorities. The petitioner, thereafter, deposited Rs. 1000/— towards required registration fees at the rate of Rs. 10/- per student on 3.9.2007 (Annexure PIS). The students were admitted to the course and they continued their training] studies in the Training Center. Thereafter the petitioner approached the respondent No.2 for grant of registration and permission to the students to appear in the test on 6.2.2009 (Annexure P/ 11) and 24.2.2009 (Annexure P/ 12). The petitioner received a communication on 4.3.2009 (Annexure P/ 10), stating that the permission cannot be granted to the institution as it appears that the petitioner institution has not admitted any students as the details were not submitted on or before 15.10.2007, pursuant to the letter dated 9.10.2007, before the cut ofdate i.e. 15.10.2007. >i> 1Q§§ Shri Manoj Parnnjpetlearned counsel appearing for the petitioner / submits that it is not a case that the petitioner has not submitted details, as required by the respondent No.2 but the same was submitted on 12. 10.2007 (Annexure P/7). According to Shri Paranjpe, the details were submitted before 15.10.2007 and the required fees was'deposited on 3.9.2007. Subsequently also, on 4.4.2009 (Annexure P/ 13‘), the details were again submitted. si \ f\ Shn‘ Alok Bakshi, lealned counsel appealing for the respondents submits that thc petitioner Training Center has not deposited the required details of the students, admitted to the course, before 15.10.2007. Shn' Paranjpe, on the requirement of the submission of registration fees, relying on a circular dated 27.5.2009 (Annexure P/ 18) submits that the registration fees can be submitted even at the time of examination. In the circular, it is prescribed that the registration fees of Rs. 10/ - for regular students is a part of the examination fees and as such the registration fees could be paid even at the time of depositing of the examination fees. Be that as it may, it is evident that the required details were submitted by the petitioner. There is no response to the Communication dated 12.10.2007, whereby details of the admitted students were submitted by the respondents. According to the petitioner the details of the students, admitted to the course, were submitted to the respondent No.2 authority. It might be that the same was not received in the omce of the respondent No.2 authority. But this is not the case of the respondents in their return that the letter dated 12. 10.2007 was not received in/the office. How the letter dated 12.10.2007 was /, ignored is not clear &om the return as well as from the documents supplied by the respondents. It appears that the registration fees has been deposited at the rate of Rs. 10/- per student on 3.9.2007 and thereafter the details in regard to each and every student was 'also furnished on 12. 10.2007. z \‘“ 0} Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to deny the fact that the letter dated 12. 10.2007 along with details of the students, admitted to the coulse, was not received by the o$ce of the respondent No.2. In these facts and circumstances of the case where even the respondent No.2 is not sure asto why communication dated 12. 10.2007 was not replied and why the students taking training in the petitioner center are not permitted to write the examination and as such the respondents authorities are directed to issue appropriate permission and registration number to the students taking training in petitioner Training Center for appearing in the examination, scheduled to be held from 22nd July, 2009. In View of the above, the petition is allowed with afore-stated directions. No order asto costs. Thakur Sd/- _ Satish K. Agnihotri‘ Judge