Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7103/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7103 of 2010
=========================================
ADIVASI
PRAGATI MANDAL THROUGH PRESIDENT/SECRETARY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH J D BHAD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
BM MANGUKIYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR
NIRAG PATHAK, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 31/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Adivasi
Pragati Mandal, a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the
Public Trusts Act, 1950 is before this Court through its President
/Secretary praying that:-
8. (B) Be
pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing
and setting aside the order dated 16th December 2009
passed respondent No.1 (The State of Gujarat, notice to be served
through Shri J.D.Bhad, Joint Secretary to Government of Gujarat,
Department of Higher Education) confirming the order dated September
1, 2009 passed by respondent No.2 (The Gujarat Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education Board).
2. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to order
dated 16.12.2009, Annexure-I, page No.60. Learned Advocate submitted
that in order dated 01.09.2009, for the reasons set out, as many as
four, permission is refused. Learned Advocate submitted that written
submission was made before the authority on 24.09.2009 and in that,
it was pointed out that all necessary requirements were complied
with.
2.1 Learned
Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to
advertisement dated 04.09.2008, Annexure-A, page No.15 and submitted
that pursuant to this advertisement, the petitioner had applied for
the permission. Learned Advocate submitted that all papers complying
with the requirements are produced from Annexure-B, page No.16 to
Annexure-G, colly., page No.53. Learned Advocate did not invite
attention of the Court to any particular document and made a general
submission that all requirements are complied with.
2.2 Learned
Advocate for the petitioner then submitted that the Government has
given a discriminatory treatment to the petitioner inasmuch as, other
similarly situated persons are granted permission, while the
petitioner is not. Learned Advocate did not invite attention to any
specific instance of this nature.
2.3 Learned
Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the authority has not
considered the documents which were produced before it. This
submission is found without any merit for the reason that the
authority has recorded in the later part of its order that, So far
as issue No.1 is concerned, the petitioner has produced tax bill of
Vahunia Sardarbhai Himsinghbhai for property No.581. The petitioner
has also produced 30 years’ lease agreement. In the map produced by
the petitioner, rooms are shown to be of 400 sq. ft. This map does
not mention as to building is built on which survey number. It only
mentions ‘ proposed’ ‘Jay Ambe Madhyamik Vidhyalaya,
Nadhewal, Tal.: Garbada, Dist.: Dahod. It is also not mentioned as
to the land is of whose ownership . Taking this into
consideration, the authority held that Issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 do not
stand complied with and thus valid objections remain.
3. In view of
the aforesaid facts and in view of the aforesaid submissions made by
the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the Court finds that there
is no substance in the petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.
It will be
appropriate to note that the order under challenge is dated
16.12.2009. The petition was filed on 21.04.2010.
It was listed before the Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.K.A.Puj) on
24.06.2010 for the first tile. It was then adjourned to 25.06.2010.
On 25.06.2010, it was adjourned to 29.06.2010. It was then listed
before the Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.R.Shah) on 05.07.2010.
It was then adjourned to 13.07.2010 and thereafter, it was adjourned
from time to time, without there being any specific order.
This is only for putting it
on record that the petitioner is not sincere about pressing the
matter and obtaining necessary orders, though it involves an
important issue of obtaining permission to start a school .
(Ravi R.Tripathi, J.)
*Shitole
Top