SHRI RAGHUNATH INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER educational institution is run by Seth Jugaldas Ganeriwala Charitable Trust and initially it was recognized by the Education Department for imparting education upto 6th standard. Subsequently, the school was upgraded and it was recognized for imparting education upto 8th standard. The institution in the name of Shri Raghunath International School is in existence since 2006 and has earned its reputation at Ratangarh, District Churu for imparting quality education. At no point of time, the institution has projected itself as a Government institution, nor has it ever claimed any advantage by using the word "international". The name and style of the institution as international school thus continued without any demur since 2006. In the year 2013, the Principal of institution made endeavour for its upgradation upto 10th Standard and in this connection the teacher of the institution Mr. Shyam Mehrishi personally visited the office of District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Churu on 10th of August 2013 with the requisite documents but in the office concerned authority was not available. Subsequent thereto, Mr. Mehrishi again visited on 12th and 23rd of August 2013 but the same has not yielded the desired result. However, on 23rd of August 2013 the officials of the department advised Mr. Mehrishi to complete some of the formalities. He was advised to bring one D.D. for Rs. 50,000 in favour of Balika Shiksha Foundation and another D.D. worth Rs. 7,500 in favour of District Education Officer, Churu. According to the instructions, the requisite demand drafts were prepared and Mr. Shyam Mehrishi visited District Education Office, Churu on 27th of August 2013 but none was available on that day. Thereafter, on 30th of August 2013 yet again he paid visit to the office and deposited the application for recognition/ upgradation of the institution upto 10th standard. According to the version of the petitioner, after submission of the requisite application, no steps were taken by the respondents for more than 10 days and therefore in order to ascertain the progress in the matter when its authorized representative Mr. Mehrishi visited office of third respondent, he was orally informed that request of the institution for its upgradation can be acceded to if the institution is prepared to remove the word "international". While conveying the said message, the papers submitted by the petitioner institution for upgradation were returned back to the authorized representative. Thereafter, without any delay, the petitioner institution sent the file to the third respondent by e -mail on 14th of September 2013. In response to the said application, which was sent by email, the petitioner institution was conveyed by the third respondent on 18th of September 2013 that the application submitted for upgradation by the petitioner institution was after expiry of the date i.e. 31st August 2013, and therefore, the same cannot be processed/considered. In the letter dt. 18th September 2013 the third respondent has precisely assigned two reasons for not entertaining the application of the petitioner institution for upgradation. Firstly, that the application was not submitted within the prescribed duration and secondly use of word "international" by the institution is in violation of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950'). On receiving the said communication, the petitioner sent yet another communication on 3rd of October 2013 intimating the third respondent that the application with the requisite documents and D.D. was submitted within time but the same was returned back. Responding to the letter of the petitioner institution dt. 3rd of October 2013, the third respondent vide letter dt. 8th of October 2013 intimated the petitioner institution that file which was submitted earlier by the petitioner institution was not returned by its office but the person concerned himself has taken away file back. That apart, it was also pointed out that there was some deficiency in the amount which was tendered by the petitioner institution as the Demand Draft was worth Rs. 7,500 whereas it ought to have been of Rs. 10,000. On behalf of respondents, no formal reply has been submitted.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Singhal, has argued that requisite application for upgradation of the school was submitted within time but the same was returned back by the office of third respondent. Therefore, the so called delay which is attributed to the petitioner by the respondent is not tenable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the objection of the respondent for upgradation, on the ground that use of word "international" is violative of the Act of 1950, is not at all tenable inasmuch as by use of word "international" none of the provisions contained under the Act of 1950 has been violated. Learned counsel, thus, assailing the impugned order Annex. 5 and subsequent order Annex. 7, whereby the same is reiterated, has submitted that the reasons for denial of upgradation of the institution are non est in the eye of law and cannot be sustained.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.