Pramiti Education And knowledge Society And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The impugned order passed by the Chief Education Officer, Dehradun on 17.10.2019 calling upon the petitioners to deposit the development fees collected by them with the State Government, since the said amount was in the nature of capitation fees, is under challenge in this writ petition.

Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, would refer to WPPIL No. 35 of 2019 to submit that, in compliance with the orders passed therein, the petitioners have already refunded the excess amount, erroneously collected towards building development fees, to all the parents; the impugned order, calling upon them to deposit the said amount with the State Government, would amount to their being called upon to make payment of the very same amount twice; Section 36 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 only enables the authorities to prosecute the petitioner; the impugned order is without jurisdiction; the said order was not preceded by any show cause notice; as a result, the petitioner was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard; and the impugned order must be set aside on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

While putting across his submission on merits, Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, would fairly state that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of being heard before the impugned order came to be passed.

Suffice, it in such circumstances, to set aside the impugned order solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The said order shall be treated as a notice to show cause. The petitioners shall be entitled to file their reply thereto within two weeks' from today. The Chief Education Officer shall consider the said reply, and pass a reasoned order thereupon, in accordance with law at the earliest and, in any event, within one month from the date of receipt of the petitioners' reply.

Needless to state that it is open to the petitioners to raise all such contentions, as are available to them in law including those urged in this writ petition, in their reply to the proceedings dated 17.10.2019 which is now being directed to be treated as a show cause notice.

Till orders are passed afresh by the Chief Education Officer, as directed hereinabove, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners. Needless to state that, in case the petitioners do not file their reply within two weeks from today, it is open to the Chief Education Officer to pass a fresh order thereafter without awaiting the petitioners' reply.

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly. No costs.