AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard Sri L.B. Brahmchari, Prabhandak/ Pramukh Sachiv of Petitioner Mahavidyalaya who has appeared in person, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned standing counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1, Union of India and Sri S.P. Misra, learned standing counsel appearing for State of U.P. and its authorities Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned standing counsel appearing for Union of India has raised a preliminary objection that Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi should have been made a party. I do not propose to consider this extremely technical objection. Respondent No. 1 is Union of India through its Secretary Manav Sansthan Vikas Mantrayala (HRD) Ministry Department New Delhi. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan is a sub unit of Respondent No. 1.
This writ petition is sequel to the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 10.04.2006 given in Civil Misc. Review application No. 68317 of 2005 in Civil Misc. writ petition No. 27579 of 2004 which had been filed by the present Petitioner against Union of India and Ors. copy of the said order is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. In the review petition it had been argued by the Petitioner "that certain rules and Regulations relating to financial assistance to voluntary Sanskrit organisation institution and Pathashala for promotion of Sanskrit have been framed"
The operative portion of the said order is quoted below:
In view of the averments made in the communication dated 16th February 2006, it is desirable that the Petitioners may submit a fresh proposal before the State Government, which may tenn furnish specific recommendation to the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi for being considered in accordance with law.
Learned Counsel for Union of India has argued that pursuant to the said order No. specific recommendation was sent by the State Government to Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan hence No. decision to provide financial assistance to the Petitioner was taken by the Union of India.
The Petitioner in person has argued that it was the slackness of the State Government that specific recommendation was not sent even though Petitioner fulfilled the entire criteria. Sri S.P. Misra, learned standing counsel has argued that neither there is any school run by the Petitioner nor there is any student or any teacher. In this regard reference has been made by Sri Misra, to paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit which has been filed by D.I.O.S. Mirzapur on 27.05.2010.
Pursuant to the order passed on the review petition State Government passed two orders on 30.03.2007 and 1.05.2008 copy of which are Annexure 5 and 6 to the writ petition and have been challenged through the same. Annexure 5 is a report dated 30.03.2007 sent by Joint Secretary, Education Department Government of U.P. to Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi in respect of Petitioner school pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 10.04.2006 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). It is mentioned in Annexure 5, the report, that the school was got inspected by the D.I.O.S. Mirzapur who reported that at the time of inspection he inquired the matter and came to know that by the name of the Petitioner No. institution was there in Rajapur, Aam Ghat Mirzapur. It was also mentioned that in the entire village several people were contacted but No. one could say anything regarding existence of the Petitioner''s school. It appears that there after Petitioner also filed contempt petition in which an order was passed directing the State Government to pass the order in the matter of the Petitioner. Thereafter, order dated 01.05.2008 was passed copy of which is Annexure 6 to the writ petition in which it is mentioned that Petitioner institution is situated in a Gali within the boundary of a closed house and at the time of inspection neither any student nor any teacher was found the institution had No. land or building of its own and it was situated in a rented house which was not fit for teaching.
The main allegation of the Petitioner is that it is a registered society to promote the sanskrit language and its function is to provide training to the students and teachers of sanskrit language and for the said purpose it made a demand for Rs. 10 crore for land and financial assistance of about Rs. 4 crore from the State Government. In the entire writ petition it has not been stated that how many students are there and how many teachers are there. It has also not been stated that actual teaching is taking place. Nothing has been said regarding examination or recognition of the school by any board or authority. In view of this absolutely No. grant can be made available to the Petitioner. The argument of the Petitioner that grant was made available to some undeserving institutions is too vague to be considered. No. details in this regard have been given in the writ petition.
Accordingly there is No. merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.