1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 8421/2007 Subodh Shiksha Samiti, Sorohi Vs Union of India & ors 13.12.2010 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Ajay Gupta - for the petitioner Mr SD Khaspuria, Dy Govt Counsel - for respondents BY THE COURT: By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 29.8.2007. It is stated that under a policy framed by the Government of India, petitioner opened three institutions under National Child Labour Policy. The institutions were to be granted aid for a period of three years. In all, 24 institutions were sanctioned by the respondents, however, vide impugned order dated 29.8.2007 all institutions were ordered to be closed. It was precisely based on a news flashed in news paper stating that under the National Child Labour Policy, the institutions are running only on papers. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite their hard working and actual existence of the institutions, they were ordered to be closed. It is submitted that looking to the period of three years having already passed, petitioner is restraining his prayer for 2 grant of aid for the period for which institutions remained operational. The prayer aforesaid has been made in the changed circumstances. Learned counsel for respondents submits that based on the news flashed in the news paper, a detailed survey was conducted. When it was found that institutions are existing on papers only, a decision was taken to close down them immediately. In the survey, number of irregularities were found. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is a matter pertains to an institution opened under National Child Labour Policy framed by the Government of India. Petitioner had three institutions. Since writ petition to quash the order of closure of institutions is not being pressed now by the petitioner under the changed circumstances, the only prayer is to grant benefit of aid for the period for which the institutions were running. Respondents in their reply have made allegations regarding running of institutions on papers only, however, petitioner has tried to show that they were running three institutions duly inspected from time to time and even appreciation letters were also issued. Therefore, they are entitled to the benefit 3 of aid for the period the institutions were running before order of closure. In view of the aforesaid background, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to look into the matter whether the institutions of the petitioner were running till impugned order was passed. The petitioner would be at liberty to submit proof for running of institutions within a period of one month from today along with representation. If it is found that petitioner institutions were actually working till closure then it may be extended benefit of aid for the period they are found working within a period of two months thereafter. It it is found that petitioner institutions were having less students then the aid may be given in proportion. In case any adverse order is passed against petitioner, it should be speaking one and in that eventuality petitioner would be free to take legal recourse as per law. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma