GOMTIPUR KELAVANI MANDAL TRUST Vs. PUSHPABEN PREMJIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.N.D. Buch, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Chetan Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 18 and Ms.Rupal Rane, learned counsel for the respondent No.19 in Special Civil Application No.8625 of 1991. Mr. N.D. Buch learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.AY Kogje, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 State. Mr.Chetan Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and none appears for the respondent No.4 though served, in Special Civil Application No.1953 of 2002.

(2.) The chequered history of both the matters is required to be considered for proper appreciation of the facts. The petitioner No.1 Gomtipur Kelavani Mandal Trust, a public trust, was running Primary as well as Secondary Schools, namely Revaben Prabhudas Bidiwala Primary School in Gomtipur area of Ahmedabad. The school was recognized as primary school under the provisions of the Bombay Primary Education Act and under the Bombay Primary Education Rules. No aid was given by the government to run these institutions. They were conducting 20 classes for standards 1 to 7 and had 991 students in all. The school was charging Rs.15.00 per student per month, the fee was revised to Rs.25.00 and was, thereafter, again revised to Rs.45.00, per student per month, with the approval of the District Education Officer. The petitioner trust, thereafter made an application for revision of the fee to Rs.55.00 per student per month. The application was approved and the permission was accorded vide order dtd.18/2/1989 by the District Education Officer, with the following directions;

(3.) It is to be noted that this application was moved to give Central Pay Scale as per Government Resolution dtd.25/9/1987 and to meet with the increasing costs of administration of the school. Undisputedly, the students studying in the institution belonged to economically backward class. The students showed their inability to pay the said fees. The total income of the school for year ending 31/3/1989 was Rs.4,08,853.80 ps., as against the expenditure of Rs.5,82,298.35 ps. The petitioners, therefore, were not in a position to meet with the void between the income and expenses and by the year ending 31/3/1990, suffered net loss of Rs.1,75,000. Due to such losses, the petitioners thought that it was not possible for them to wipe off the said losses and under the compelling circumstances, the petitioner trust by its Resolution dtd.19/9/1989 decided to close down the school w.e.f.31/5/1990. On 18/10/1990, the petitioner moved an application to the District Education Officer for grant of approval to close down the educational institution w.e.f.31/5/1990 under Rule 5 of Schedule-F of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949. Rule 5 of the said rules requires that no management of a recognized private school shall effect any reduction in the total number of classes in its school or close down the school, without prior permission in writing from the Government. Under the rule, the management is obliged to make an application to the Authorized Officer at least six months before the date from which it intends to reduce the number of classes or proposes to close down the school. The Authorized Officer, after receiving such application, is required to hear the management and forward the application with its recommendations to the Government through the Director of Primary Education. The Government on its end, may make further inquiry as it appears necessary under the set of circumstances and would be obliged to decide the application either by granting it or rejecting it. The authorized officer, after receiving the application of the petitioner trust, forwarded the said application to the Government through the Director of Primary Education with his report. The present petitioners filed Special Civil Application No.3322 of 1990 with a prayer that the Authorized Officer be asked to decide the application. During the pendency of the said Special Civil Application, the Authorized Officer by the impugned order dtd.29/5/1990, without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner, refused to grant permission to close the school and therefore, the earlier petition was came to be amended. The parents whose wards were students in the school also filed Special Civil Application No.3575 of 1990.