BHAGWANT KAUR SANDHU Vs. LAXMI EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment we will dispose of the above two writ petitions being Writ Petition (Lodging) Nos. 1379 and 1569 of 2007 Public Interest Litigation No.55 of 2007. The teachers of Sheth L U Jhaveri and Sir M.V. College of Arts, Science and Commerce and Sir Chinai College of Commerce and Economics approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Writ Petition No.1379 of 2007 praying that the closure notice dated 13th June 2007 (Exhibit A to the petition) issued by the management of the colleges be quashed and set aside and the management be directed to admit requisite number of students for Academic Year 2007-2008 onwards. It was further prayed that the respondents be directed to comply with the directions contained in the letter dated 27th June 2007 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, State of Maharashtra. Lastly they prayed for a direction for appointment of an independent managing committee to manage the affairs of both these colleges.

(2.) WRIT Petition (Lodging) No. 1379 of 2007 was filed on 2nd July 2007. During the pendency of the said petition, another petition being WRIT Petition (Lodging) No. 1569 of 2007 was filed on 23rd July 2007 by the Laxmi Education Society Trust which is looking after the affairs of both the colleges seeking a declaration that the closure notice issued by the management was legal and proper, the show cause notice dated 13th July 2007 (Exhibit K to the petition) issued by Director of the Education proposing to appoint an administrator was illegal, unjustified and they prayed for quashing of the same and for issuance of consequential directions. However, during the pendency of the above petitions, an order was made on 25th July 2007, vide which an administrator was appointed. The petitioners in the above petition prayed for setting aside and quashing the said order on the ground that the same is illegal and unjustified being violative of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) AS far as the show cause notice dated 13th July 2007 and the order dated 25th July 2007 are concerned, the principal argument was that the order was passed without hearing the management of the colleges and without providing them any reasonable opportunity to put forth their case in reply to the show cause notice. At the very outset it was conceded on behalf of the State that they would not press the implementation of the order dated 25th July 2007 and in fact same would not be given effect to. However, they would reserve their right to issue fresh show cause notice and/or pass appropriate orders on the basis of the same show cause notice, but after granting opportunity of hearing to the management of the colleges in accordance with the principles of natural of justice. AS such the principal relief claimed in Writ Petition No.1569 of 2007 in fact stands granted to the petitioners.