High CourtsDivision Bench(2021) 11 OHC CK 0064

SCB Medical Public School Parents Association vs State Of Odisha And Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 9 November 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ · A.K. Mohapatra, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 34224 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 654 words
1.

The grievance made by the parents of students studying in the DAV-SCB Medical Public School ('the School'), Jobra, Cuttack is that the location of the school should not be shifted out from where it is at present and that the procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) must be strictly complied with before any shifting takes place.

2.

The present petition has been prompted by a letter dated 22nd October, 2021 written by the Principal of the School to the parents informing them of the meeting of the High Power Committee Meeting held on 2nd September, 2021 where the Government reiterated its earlier decision to get the School vacated for the expansion of the SCB Medical College Hospital, in whose campus the School is located. In the said letter dated 20th October 2021 the Principal informed the parents of the decision of the Government of Odisha to agree to provide a patch of 2.5 acres of land near Chauliaganj Playground (OMP Square) Cuttack in which it is proposed to construct a new school building of 72,000 sq.ft (built up area "with all modern amenities for a model school within one year." Till such time the new school building is ready it had been decided to accommodate existing students of the School in three other DAV Public Schools in Cuttack. On 24th September, 2021 the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (RDC) reiterated the request to shift out the school within 15 days.

3.

Mr. H.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner was repeatedly asked by the Court in what manner the parents or the children themselves would be adversely affected by the shifting of the school. Except by saying that the students may have to travel the distance to the new location, there is no other grievance put forth before the Court.

4.

Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate instructed by the Collector, Cuttack informs the Court that the proposed new location of the school is over an area of 2.5 acres where there will be a modern building with much better facilities for the students than at the present location. He points out that the present location which is within the campus of the SCB Medical College is in fact not appropriate for a school given that some of the Departments of the Medical College are in its immediate vicinity. He further assures that the there will be no problem as regards transportation available to the children to reach the school. There would be bus facilities made available as statutorily mandated.

5.

Given the reality of most children in cities attending school by travelling in public transport or in buses provided by the schools themselves, the mere fact that the children now studying in DAV-SCB Medical Public School may have to travel some distance to attend classes at a new location cannot by itself be a factor to stall the relocation. The proposed area for the School at the new location is much larger. The new building is expected to have better and modern facilities. Further, the transition appears to be taking place in a planned and in a time-bound manner, and in consultation with the School.

6.

There also appears to be a misconception as regards the applicability of the 2013 Act, by presuming that the land belonging to the School, or leased to it, is being 'acquired'. Even assuming that the School was a lessee in relation to the land in which it is presently located, there is no indication that the 2013 Act is required to be invoked particularly since the School itself has not made any grievance in that regard.

7.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is not persuaded to interfere at the instance of the parents of the school children and for the reasons placed before the Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed..

................................