Hope And Care Education Charitable Trust vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Ms.Poonam Mehta for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Sahil Trivedi for the respondent State.

Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Ms.Mehta for the petitioner, it would appear that while the petitioner had initially submitted an application to the respondent Director of Primary Education, seeking permissions to open a new non-grant-in-aid Primary School in English Medium for the academic year 2023-24, since the original application did not have certain relevant documents, the petitioner had provided a further application with all the relevant documents and whereas, in spite thereof, the respondent Director of Primary Education had rejected the said application without considering the later documents submitted by the petitioner. It would further appear that an additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner placing on record all the additional details, which would prima facie show that probably the petitioner Institution had applied with all the requirements.

Having regard to the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be met at this stage, if the petitioner is relegated back to the respondent Director of Primary Education for taking decision afresh and whereas a time limit can be stipulated for reconsideration.

Learned AGP Mr.Sahil Trivedi and learned Advocate Ms.Mehta would not have any objection to such a course of action being adopted.

Under such circumstances, the following directions are passed :-

Petitioner to make an application afresh for grant of permission for a new non-grant-in-aid Primary School in English Medium for the academic year 2024-25 within a period of one week from today;

Upon receipt of the application, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter. It is clarified that while taking decision afresh, respondent No.2 shall not be, in any manner whatsoever, influenced by the fact that the first application of the present petitioner having been rejected vide order dated 6.3.2023.

In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision, which would be taken by the respondent No.2, it would be open for the petitioner to exhaust appropriate remedy available to the petitioner.

Needless to observe that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter.

With the above observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.