Search the Internet           Tips

HC passes strictures against
Maharashtra minister: PTI

''We are deeply pained and shocked over the manner in which the file has been processed by the persons in authority. No procedure was followed much less the statutory requirement of a formal application and proposal by management,'' a bench headed by Justice Ajit Shah noted in their order on October 3.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judges noted ''in this case, the procedure was not followed because of the letter written by local legislator Dilip Sopal to the minister who not only acted with utmost despatch but also directed his office to cancel an earlier order of withdrawing permission granted to the same institution, Jai Jagdamba Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha''.

This was despite the order being affirmed by the high court as well as the Supreme Court, the judges noted. ''In effect, the minister directed his office to overlook the orders passed by the high court as well as the apex court for the order of withdrawal of permission of school at Javalgaon.''

''The minister, obliged to uphold laws and do right to all people without favour, has observed the oath of office in breach. He has directed his office to act against the law, obviously being influenced by the local legislator. We only hope that is the only case that has been decided on extraneous considerations rather than applying the rule of law,'' the judges noted.

The judges observed, ''It is high time that persons in authority do some introspection on these matters and resolve to act justly, fairly, without any fear or favour as per the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the law so as to live up to their oath of office.''

The judges were shocked to find that a sketchy affidavit had been filed and called for the official records where they came across correspondence between the local legislator and the minister.

''The affidavit is of no assistance to the court. It is another attempt in the entire process to favour the respondent institution. We also find that an attempt has been made to cover up some notings that may have been of some relevance,'' they observed.

''Facts have emerged after we perused the records. We therefore strongly deprecate the attitude adopted by each concerned. This cannot be countenanced at all. In our view, the filing of incomplete or inaccurate pleadings is tantamount to interfering with the administration of justice.''

Shivshakti Bahuddeshiya Seva Sanstha, through its lawyer Sanjiv A Sawant, challenged the permission granted on July 18 to the respondent institution to transfer its secondary school from Javalgaon to Kalegaon village in Barshi taluka of Solapur district.

The petitioner took over a school at Kalegaon, which ran into financial difficulties in 1996-97 following which its recommendation was withdrawn by the government. They submitted a proposal to the state to allow them to run an alternative school at Kalegaon, but the government refused permission, saying they could approach it next year.

The petitioner submitted a proposal on September 25, 1998 to start a school at Kalegaon for the academic year 1999-2000, with necessary documents. Receiving no response from the government, it filed a petition in the high court.

The petition was disposed of by the court, which asked the government to deal with its application expeditiously within three months.

Instead of acting on the petitioner's proposal, the government granted permission to the respondent institution to transfer its secondary school from Javalgaon to Kalegaon, Sawant submitted.

The respondent had prayed for starting a school at Javalgaon. But its proposal was rejected because permission was granted in favour of the other management and it was not possible to permit two schools in the village.

The decision was challenged in the high court, which dismissed the petition. Hence, the decision against the respondent withdrawing permission for the school at Javalgaon became final. An appeal, filed in the apex court, was also rejected.

The judges noted that the submission which impressed them was that how could the authorities have considered the respondent's case to start a school at Kalegaon when no such proposal had been submitted. On the other hand, what was the justification in discarding the proposal submitted by the petitioner for starting a school at Kalegaon, they wondered.

The only explanation offered by the state was that the respondent was already running a school at Javalgaon and that the authorities had merely permitted them to transfer the school to Kalegaon.

The judges noted that the affidavit filed by R J Achrekar was 'blissfully vague' about the procedure adopted by the authorities, which culminated in the impugned order allowing the transfer of the school to Kalegaon.

The court also observed that the secretary of education department had made a clear noting on the file that since permission granted in favour of the respondent institution (for a school at Javalgaon) was already withdrawn the question of considering the transfer of that school did not arise.

Despite the noting, the minister directed his office to grant permission in favour of the respondent to transfer the school from Javalgaon to Kalegaon by withdrawing the order of cancellation of permission passed earlier.

Setting aside the impugned order which allowed the respondent institution to transfer the school, the court directed the state government to forthwith grant permission in favour of the petitioner provided it satisfied the authorities about its financial capacity to run the school at Kalegaon.

The court also ordered that the students who had been admitted by the respondent institution shall be absorbed in the petitioner's school as soon as it became functional. Until then, the students shall pursue their studies in respondent's school.

Tell us what you think of this report