GITANJALI EDUCATION TRUST Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the Petitioner Gitanjali Education Trust under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the prayers as prayed inter alia revival of registration of the school run by the Petitioner Trust. It is also prayed that the impugned order dated 7.5.2012 at Annexure -OO, the order dated 20.6.2012 at Annexure -P and also the order dated 8.8.2012 at Annexure -Q declining to revive the registration and recognition of the petitioner's school Santram Higher Secondary School, Kesara, Taluka Mehmedabad, District Kheda may be quashed and set aside, on the grounds stated in the memo of petition.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel Shri K.B.Pujara for the petitioner. Learned Advocate Shri Pujara referred to the background of the facts and stated that the petitioner is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 running the Secondary and Higher Secondary School mainly for the tribal students. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara submitted that the school had started in 1983 as a grant -in -aid school. However, vide order dated 3.6.1995 passed by Respondent No.2 -Board, the registration of the school was cancelled without any reason. Thereafter from June 1998, the recognition was granted as non granted school. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara submitted that it has a background of mala fide by one officer Manibhai Gamit who was an officer and as stated in detail in the petition, he had an evil eye on one Kalaben Patel belonging to schedule tribe who was working as a Rector of the hostel of the Petitioner's Institution and thereafter as she did not succumb to pressure, the harassment started resulting in ultimately cancellation of the registration. Learned Advocate Shri Pujara submitted that in fact a false atrocity case was registered by said Shri Gamit against Kalaben and ultimately acquittal was recorded and the State Vigilance Officer of tribal department was suspended. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara therefore submitted that at the instance of said Vigilance Officer, a recommendation was made by the District Education Officer, Kheda at Nadiad for cancellation of recognition of the school vide letter dated 10.6.2005 on the basis of which Respondent No.2 Board cancelled the recognition of the school vide order dated 21.10.2005 at Annexure -B. Thereafter, the Petitioner Trust managed to fill up the form for the students through other school and had been pursuing the matter for revival and recognition. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara referred to the impugned orders and also the representation made to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, Government of India, which is a autonomous constitutional body. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara pointedly referred to Annexure -E which is a report and submitted that the National Commission also gave the findings after the visit which is placed on record. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara submitted that as could be seen from the report made after the visit, there was no justification for cancellation of registration. He emphasized the observations made for recommendation in favour of the petitioner trust:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Shri K.B.Pujara submitted that similarly the District Primary Education Officer has also made a report which clearly makes out a case for the petitioner. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara emphasized that it has been clearly stated with regard to the area, sufficient number of rooms and it is also stated that the decision has come in favour of the Trustee in a criminal case. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara further submitted that all required criteria regarding infrastructure or facilities have been fulfilled in this report and therefore recommendation has been made that the school run by the Petitioner Trust may be revived. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara therefore submitted that as could be seen from the record, the order dated 21.10.2005 at Annexure -B came to be passed by Respondent No.2 Board on the ground of alleged irregularity. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara submitted that this order passed by the Respondent No.2 Board is based on the record made by the Vigilance Officer at the relevant time and therefore such an order cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara also referred to the order passed by the State as an appellate authority in purported exercise of powers under Section 31(10) of the Act, which is also produced on record. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara submitted that while passing the order in appeal it came to be rejected. Thereafter even though the Petitioner Trust continued the school while pursuing the remedy for the benefit of the children in such area, the order came to be passed in appeal dated 26.3.2010 at Annexure -K. It is in this background the Petitioner has filed the present petition to challenge the mala fide action. He also referred to the order dated 20.6.2012 at Annexure -P and submitted that on the ground that the application of the Petitioner Trust is pending and it is sub judice, the appeal was dismissed without any reasons. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara submitted that had the opportunity been provided it could have been verified by the Board or the Respondent State authority. He further submitted that there is a government resolution dated 22.5.1969 which also provide for focus on the education in such areas. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara pointedly referred to Annexure -R1 to support his submissions with regard to recognition of the school. Learned Counsel Shri Pujara has tried to justify that considering the interest of the students, the school was run and the forms were permitted to be filled in through another school.