LUTHRA ACADEMY Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are private educational institutions said to be governed by the Private Educational Institutions (Regulations and Control) Act, 1967 and the Grant-in-aid Rules framed pursuant to the powers exercised under the Financial Code. These rules contained in Govt. Order No. 53 of 1975 dated 27-1-1995, inter alia, prescribe and provide for a complete machinery for the control and regulation of these institutions and also for providing them financial aid and its appropriation. In this regard Rule 17(c)(ii) made a provision for reimbursement of the rent of the building/s paid by the institutions, but, at the same time made an exception in respect of the building/s which belonged to the Managing Committee or were constructed with the aid of the Government and made provision for maintenance expenditure only in respect of these building/s. Similarly, Rule 17(VII)(iii) further provided that in respect of the rent of building/s, rent actually paid as per rent-deed was reimburseable except in the case of building/s which belonged to the Managing Committee or any of the members or of any staff member of an institution in which case the rent payable would be assessed by the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. concerned.

(2.) Petitioners case is that pursuant thereto they were receiving rent for the buildings used by them but the Government issued Govt. Order No. 431-Edu of 1985 dated 2-8-1985 whereby it modified the Rules by deleting Rule 17(c)(ii) and by recasting Rule 17-(e)(iii) as under :"In respect of rent of buildings, rent actually paid as per the rent deeds shall be reimbursable. The rent reimbursable shall be the rent actually charged or the rent which may be certified as reasonable by the Chief Engineer R and B of the Province in which the institution is located whichever is less. However, no rent will be paid for any building/buildings belonging to the Managing Committee/Trust or Managing Committees nominated by the trust from their General Council of any of its members, their relatives, or to any staff member or his/her relatives or the patron of the institution or for a building donated to the institution or raised from contributions from the public with or without Govt. aid. However, in respect of building/buildings belonging to the Managing Committee or one constructed with the aid of Government. On such cases expenditure on maintenance may be allowed in accordance with the norms laid down by the Government in respect of Government buildings."Petitioners feel aggrieved of this as according to them, it had resulted in hostile discrimination to them. They contend that their school buildings are either owned by the individual member of the managing committee of the institution or an individual member of the staff working in the institution or a relation of either of the two and since these buildings were not owned by the institutions, rent was being paid for them to the owner irrespective of whether he was a member of the managing committee or the staff. As such there was no justification for segregating those school buildings which were owned by the members of the managing committee or the staff as against the buildings which were taken on rent from others. It is also pointed out that the modified rules perpetuate discrimination by making a further classification by providing for payment of maintenance charges to the school building/s belonging to the managing committees or those constructed with the aid of the government and at the same time refuse this facility in case of building/s owned by the member of the managing committee or staff or a relation of either of the two.

(3.) Petitioners' whole case proceeds on the thesis that private educational institutions were part and parcel of the educational structure of the State and were as good as government educational establishments imparting education and thus, discharging a constitutional obligation of the State and since these institutions were further controlled and regulated by the Govt., State was under an obligation to take care of their needs and to provide them aid to sustain. As such it was required to reimburse the rent for their school buildings irrespective of whether these were owned by any member of the managing committee or staff or the relation of the two because these institutions were in any case paying rent to the owners irrespective of their status in such institutions. In other words, it is projected that by denying the facility of providing rent to their school building/s and by extending this facility to hired school building/s, Govt. was only discriminating between the similarly situated and circumstanced institutions in violation of the mandate of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Reliance in this regard is placed on the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court regarding class legislation in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.