AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Yog, J.—Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition along with other similar writ petitions are listed in bunch today and are decided together since petitioners are represented by same counsel and only one argument is made in the present petition.
This writ petition and other similar writ petitions have been filed by Registered Society/Committee of Management managing and running educational institutions upto Junior High School, Secondary and Higher Secondary High School in the State of U.P. contending inter alia that the Government had issued order prescribing certain norms to sanction grantinaid under relevant statutory provisions. Government issued orders inviting applications from the concerned to seek grantinaid, petitioner submitted application; the Government, however, did not include petitioner''s school while deciding list of schools made entitled to receive grantinaid from the State Government. The criterion for grant of permanent recognition and that of extending benefit of grantinaid are same, certain institutions mentioned in the petition were similarly situated like that of the petitioner; act of the Government was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, no notice was given to the petitioner before rejecting petitioner''s application for grantinaid and hence the present petition praying for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to sanction the grant to the petitioner''s school as and when it has been sanctioned to other schools besides the prayer in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for sanction of grants.
At the outset it may be noted that no ad interim injunction order was passed by this Court, secondly the petitioner has himself sought the relief for issuing writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for sanction of grant, relief1 praying for writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to sanction grantinaid becomes irrelevant. Thirdly, this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Midil School Samittee, Madiyapur, Azamgarh and others v. Director of Schools, Welfare Officer, U.P., Lucknow and others, 1999(3) UPLBEC 1922 held that grantinaid cannot be claimed as of right and no mandamus can be issued under Article 226, Constitution of India.
It is true the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragati Vashi and others, Judgment Today 1995 (6) SC 119 has held that grantinaid cannot be denied arbitrarily but mere allegation of the petitioner to the effect that Article 14, Constitution of India has been violated, without giving relevant details relating to petitioner''s schools and the schools which have been extended the benefit of grantinaid to enable the Court to assess equality/similarity, Court cannot decide question of parity.
Since about 13 years have already elapsed when this petition was filed, it is likely that many of the petitioners may have already received grantinaid under subsequent Government order which are being issued from time to time.
It is, however, made clear that the petitioner, if still aggrieved, may approach the State Government for claiming benefit of grantinaid and this Court has no doubt that the same shall be considered in accordance with law and relevant Government orders in existence.
In view of the above, present writ petition has no merit apart from the fact that these petitions appear to have been rendered infructuous.
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Petition dismissed)