Libertatem Magazine

Allahabad HC Disposes Writ Petition at Request of Petitioner

Contents of this Page

The High Court of Allahabad, on an order, had disposed of the writ petition after a period of about five-years at the request of the Petitioner’s alternate suggestion.

Background of the Case

On 24th March 2015, the State level Committee had recommended 71 institutions which were granted recognition or affiliation by Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyala before 2000 would be taken under the grant-in-aid list – according to the Government Orders dated 14th February 2007 and 7th February 2014. The petitioner’s institution, namely, Audhyogik Nav Shiksha Yatan Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, was taken according to the list. But, according to the recommendation of the state-level committee, 77 institutions were listed wherein the petitioner’s institution was left out.

On 26th October 2016, the petitioner’s filed writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent no.1 to pass an appropriate order within three months. However, on the impugned order dated, 3rd May 2016, the petitioner’s institution was rejected by the respondent no.1. After the filing and issue of several varied orders, on 2nd December 2016, a detailed report was submitted by the District Inspector of Schools regarding the matter.

Following the same, the Director of Education (Secondary), Lucknow had also submitted a report which included the recommendation of the Petitioner’s institution into the grant-aid list, before the respondent no.1. As the petition has been pending for a long time, the Petitioner wanted the inclusion of his institution in the light of the recommendation aforementioned because the scheme is time-bound.

Submissions at the Court

The learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that due to the aforesaid facts, there would be no useful purpose and meaning if the writ petition is still pending and thus wanted to dispose of the petition. The writ petition was filed for asking three directions by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, namely,

  • Order or direction like mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no.1 to take a final decision on the document dated 13th February 2017
  • Order or direction like certiorari quashing the order dated 3rd March 2016
  • Order or direction like mandamus directing and commanding the respondent authorities to take the petitioner institution on the grant-in-aid list

The learned counsel for the state has no objection to the matter stated above.

Court’s Reading

Given the submissions at the Court, the learned Judge Mahesh Chandra Tripathi had directed the Respondent no.1, Addn. Chief Secretary (Secondary Education), Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to take a final decision by considering the recommendation of the Director of Education (Secondary) within three months since the issue of this order.

It was notified by the Court that the concerned authority shall verify the aforesaid information’s authenticity and make a declaration of such verification in a written-format. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author