Posted On by &filed under Supreme Court of India.


Supreme Court of India
Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors vs G.V.K. Girls High School on 7 August, 2000
Author: M J Rao
Bench: M.J.Rao K.G Balakrishnana
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2422  of  1997



PETITIONER:
GOVT.  OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
G.V.K.	GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL

DATE OF JUDGMENT:	08/08/2000

BENCH:
M.J.Rao K.G Balakrishnana




JUDGMENT:

L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J

J U D G M E N T

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

This is an appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh

against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 1745 of
1995

dated 6.8.1996 affirming the judgment of the learned

Single Judge of that Court in Writ petition 15879/90

dated 27.7.1995.

The following are the facts:

The respondent-school was admitted to grant-in-aid

in GO.347 (Ed.) dated 1.8.86 w.e.f. 1.9.85 to 29.2.86

under AP.Act I/82. On the ground that there were some

complaints against various schools, Government
appointed

a Committee on 24.2.88 under GO.220 and this was made
a

statutory Committee by Andhra Pradesh Act 22/88. The

Committee cleared the respondent-School but still the

arrears for the period 1.9.85 to 31.10.89 for the Head

Mistress and from 1.3.86 to 31.10.89 for the staff
were

not paid. Hence, the present writ petition was filed.

After the Writ petition was filed, GO.138 (Ed.) dated

25.4.94 was issued refusing to pay these arrears.

The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ petition

holding that the respondent- school was entitled to

payment of ‘arrears’ of grant-in-aid and quashed

G.O.No.138 dated 25.4.94. Then the State came forward

with a legislation,- after the said judgment, – by way

of Andhra Pradesh Act 34/95 (published in the Gazette

on 20.9.95) with retrospective effect from 17.10.89

which permitted denial of ‘arrears’ of grant-in-aid

whenever such arrears were claimed under “any
judgment,

decree or order of Court or other authority or any

order issued by Government”. In the Writ Appeal, the

State relied upon the said legislation to get over the

judgment dated 27.7.95 of the learned Single Judge

directing arrears of grant-in-aid to be paid but the

Division Bench held that the legislature could not set

aside the judgment of the High Court by Act 34/95.
The

judgment was confirmed and the Writ Appeal was

dismissed. It is against the said judgment that this

appeal is preferred by the State. During the pendency
of

this appeal stay of the High Court’s order was
refused.

For appreciating the points raised in this appeal,

it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the
three

statutes and the various government orders dealing
with

grant-in-aid to schools in the State of Andhra Pradesh

chronologically in so far as they are relevant for the

case before us.

Andhra Pradesh Act 1/82

The Andhra Pradesh Education Act ( A.P. Act I of

1982) deals with ‘grant-in-aid’ Chapter VIII (
sections

42 to 47). Section 42 states that the Government
shall,

within the limits of its economic capacity, set apart
a

sum of money annually for being given as grant-in-aid
to

local authority and private institutions recognised
for

the aforesaid purpose. Section 43 deals with the

authorities which may sanction the grant, ( section 44

has been omitted in 1983), section 45 deals with the

manner of submitting applications for sanction of
grant

and the conditions to be fulfilled on such sanction.

Sub-clause (1) of section 46 gives power to Government

to withhold, reduce or withdraw grant, notwithstanding

anything in the Chapter, on inquiry, (i) on the ground

of non-availability of funds or (ii) because of the

conduct and efficiency and the financial condition of

such institution. The section provides opportunity to
be

given. Sub-clause (2) of section 46 states that,
without

prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-

section (1) or any other provisions of the Act, the

Government may, after making necessary inquiry,

withhold, reduce or withdraw any grant if the
management

of the Institution is guilty of various acts specified

in the sub-clause. Section 47 deals with the manner
of

utilisation of funds and movable property of private

institution.

GO.238 (Ed).dated 27.5.86 and GO.347 (Ed.)dated 1.8.86

Government issued G.O.238(Ed.) dated 27.5.86

stating that all schools which were validly opened on
or

after 1.4.1977 and which had completed 5 years in

respect of boys’ schools and 3 years in respect of

girls’ schools etc. are to be admitted to
grant-in-aid.

As already stated, the respondent-school was admitted

to grant-in-aid as per G.O.347 (Ed.) dated 1.8.86 with

effect from 1.9.85 to 29.2.86 as permitted by Act
I/82.

Complaints and GO.220 dated 24.2.88 appointing
Committee.

On 24.2.88, Government issued G.O. 220 stating

that Government had received various complaints
against

several schools which were receiving grant-in-aid even

though they did not satisfy the necessary conditions.

It was further stated that the Government had,

therefore, constituted a High Level Committee in G.O.

Rt.No.220 (Ed.) dated 24.2.88 to look into every case

of grant-in-aid and make specific recommendations.

Andhra Pradesh Act 22/88: Statutory Committee to
inquire into complaints:

Soon after 24.2.88, the Government felt that a GO

was not sufficient to enable the making of inquiries

into complaints and that legislation was necessary.

It,

therefore,came forward with the Andhra Pradesh Private

Educational Institutions Grant-in-Aid (Regulation)
Act,

1988(AP Act 22 of 1988) which was published in the

Gazette on 29.8.88 and under sub-clause (3) of Section
1

this Act was given effect from 22.7.1985. Section 3
of

the Act reads as follows:

“Section 3(1): Regulation of grant- in-aid to private
educational institutions:

Notwithstanding anything contained in G.O. Ms.No.238,
Education (SSE) Department, dated the 27th May, 1986 and
GO.Ms. No.424, Education (CE) Department, dated the 19th
September, 1985, –

(a) no private educational institution other than a
college established after the Ist April, 1977 land existing
on the Ist September, 1985 and no private college
established after the Ist April, 1977 and existing on the
Ist March, 1985 shall be entitled to receive any grant-
in-aid unless the Committee constituted in GO.Rt.No.220,
Education (SSE-I) Department, dated the 24th February, 1988
recommends that it may be admitted to grant-in-aid; and

(b) no private educational institution other than a
College which has been established after the Ist September,
1985 and no private college which has been established after
the Ist March, 1985 shall be entitled to receive any grant-
in-aid.

(2) A private educational institution referred to in
clause (a) of sub-section (1) in favour of which the
Committee recommends the release of grant-in-aid shall be
entitled to such grant only from the date it satisfies all
the conditions for admission to grant-in-aid specified in
the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and the Rules made
thereunder, the grants-in-aid Code and the orders and other
instructions issued by the Government from time to time in
this behalf.”

Section 4 of the Act refers to release of grant-

in-aid in respect of certain additional sections and

posts. Section 5 refers to seeking refund of
grant-in-

aid if the Committee in G.O.220(ed.) dated 24.2.88

determines that the institution wrongly received aid.

Section 6 said the Act will have effect
notwithstanding

anything in any law, judgment etc. Section 7 deals
with

validation. Section 8 repeals the Ordinance of 1988.

GO.124 (Ed.) dated 27.1.89 & GO.326 (Ed.) dated
17.10.89: The Committee rejects complaints against several
schools including respondent-School:

Under a G.O. 124 (Ed.) dated 27.1.89 a Committee

was constituted as stated in the above Act 22/88. It

appears that the Committee met and conducted inquiries

into complaints and gave various recommendations.

G.O.

326 (Ed.) dated 17.10.89 was thereafter issued stating

that the Committee had recommended release of
grant-in-

aid to 59 secondary schools and other specified

elementary, oriental schools, sections whose names are

enumerated in the Annexure – “subject to various

conditions” (i) to (vi) and that Rs.63 lakhs was being

sanctioned to these schools enumerated in the Annexure

to this G.O. for the period 1.11.89 to 29.2.90. But

para 12 of the GO. is important and stated as
follows:

“Regarding payment of arrears to the schools now
admitted to grant-in-aid, orders will be issued separately.”

A point has been raised as to whether this para is an

admission that arrears are due and will be paid. As
to

the meaning of the word ‘now’ used in this order,
there

is again some controversy and we shall explain it a

little later.

The Writ petition for arrears and the GO.138 (Ed.)
dated 25.4.94 refusing arrears:

As the arrears of grant-in-aid were not released,

the Ist respondent filed W.P.15879/90, seeking release

of the arrears for the period 1.9.85 to 31.10.89 for
the

Headmistress and for 1.3.86 to 31.10.89 for the other

staff.

As already stated, during the pendency of the Writ

petition Government issued a specific order GO.138
(Ed.)

dated 25.4.94 refusing to pay the arrears. In the
said

GO, Government referred to para 12 of GO.326(Ed.)
dated

17.10.89 as set out above and said that in that para

Government had not made any commitment to pay arrears.

It stated:

“It will be seen from the Government Order cited that
the Government have not made any specific commitment with
regard to the arrears.”

Government then said that after examining the matter
in

detail in the light of “the right of the schools for

grant-in-aid or arrears therein” and also the ‘present

financial position’ of the State Government and taking

into account the fact that there will be the extra

expense of about 4.5 crores, if arrears are to be
paid,

the Government decided “not pay arrears”. The
validity

of this GO was, therefore, gone into by the learned

Single Judge.

Learned Single Judge directs arrears to be paid:

Before the learned Single Judge, apart from

relying on sections 42 to 45 of AP Act 1/82 and the

retrospectivity given to AP Act 22/88, and the various

GOs, the respondent school relied also upon the above

para 12 to contend that the entitlement of the schools

for arrears prior to 17.10.89 was re-affirmed in this

GO.326 but that what the GO meant in para 12 was that

the further order contemplated therein was only for

working out the mode of payment. The Government, on
the

other hand, contended before the learned Single Judge

that in this para 12 of GO 326 Government had
identified

these schools as eligible to receive grant-in-aid

‘afresh’ and it was not a case of re-affirmation of a

previous eligibility. Of course, question is whether

this contention of the Government can fit into the GO
if

para 12 refers to payment of arrears.
Respondent-school

contends that if it was a fresh admission to grant-in-

aid, there was indeed no need at all to refer to any

arrears. We shall revert to this aspect again.

The learned Single Judge had, therefore, to go

into the validity of GO 138 dated 25.4.94 denying

arrears. (By that date Ap Act 34/95 had not been

passed). The learned Judge allowed the Writ petition
on

27.7.1995 and directed payment of arrears and declared

GO.138(Ed.) dated 25.4.94 as inoperative, stating that

under sections 42, 43 and 45 of the Act 1/82, the

statute conferred a right to receive the grant-in-aid

and that initially grant-in-aid was released in favour

of the petitioner for the period 1.9.85 to 26.2.86 as

stated in GO.347 (Ed.) dated 1.8.86, that later on in

view of complaints against various schools, Government

appointed a Committee in GO.220 dated 24.2.1988, the

Committee cleared the case of the writ petitioner,
along

with other schools in GO.326 dated 17.10.89 and while

the Committee was inquiring into the matter, the right

to ‘arrears’ remained in abeyance till the writ

petitioner was cleared by the Committee, that once the

favourable recommendation by the Committee was given,
it

was nothing but a retro-active declaration of the
right

to receive the grant-in-aid from 29.2.86. Learned
Judge

also held that in para 12 of the GO. 326 dated
17.10.89,

the Government had agreed to pay the arrears and,

therefore, they could not have issued GO.138 dated

25.4.94 refusing to release the arrears because of

‘present financial position’ ( i.e. in 1994). The
writ

petition was allowed.

Act 34/95 says arrears need not be paid as per
judgment or Government order:

We have already stated that after the above

judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Legislature

passed Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions
Grant-in-

Aid (Regulation) Supplementary Provision Act, 1995
(Act

34/95). It was published in the Gazette on 20.9.95.

It

was given retrospective effect from 17.10.89. It

contains only two sections. There is a long preamble

setting out the gist of the various GOs.set out above.

Section 1 deals with retrospectively and section 2 of

this Act, declares that arrears payable by virtue of

“any judgment or decree of Court or other authority or

any order issued by Government” need not be paid even
if

it had become payable to the schools enumerated in GO

326 dated 17.10.89 read with Go 178 dated 23.07.90.
We

have extracted section 2 lower down in this judgment.

Division Bench says Act 34/95 cannot overrule judgment
of learned Single Judge:

It was this Act 34/95 that was relied upon by the

Government before the Division Bench in the Writ
Appeal

to deny the arrears. The Division Bench, as already

stated, held that once the rights of the respondent
for

release of grant-in-aid got crystallised by way of a

judgment, the Legislature could not have set aside the

judgment by passing a law and therefore,
notwithstanding

the new law, the State was bound to honour the
judgment

of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal was

dismissed. However, the Bench did not go into the

question whether Act 34/95 removed the basis of the

judgment of the learned Single Judge with
retrospective

effect.

Points arising in this appeal:

In this appeal, we have heard learned Senior

counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh Smt.

K.Amareswari and learned counsel for the respondent
Sri

B. Kanta Rao.

The following points arise for consideration:

(1) whether the State can successfully rely on A.P.Act

34/95 to deny the arrears of grant-in-aid if the
arrears

had become payable under Act 1/82 and Act 22/88, and

once the Committee appointed under Act 22/88 had
cleared

the school?

(2) Whether, in the facts of the case, the arrears of

the grant-in-aid could be denied by Legislation even

after the right to the same was declared by the
learned

Single Judge of the High Court?

Point 1:

We have noticed that the period for which the

dispute between the parties survives is regarding

arrears for the period from 1.9.85 to 31.10.89 so far
as

the post of Head-Mistress of this school is concerned

and for 1.3.86 to 31.10.89 so far as the staff is

concerned.

We shall first refer to the effect of Act I/82 on

the facts of this case. Section 42 to 45 of Act 1/82

contain the main provisions as to admission to
grant-in-

aid. In other words, in respect of the schools which

satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions as

prescribed in the GOs, a statutory right to receive

grant-in-aid is clearly created by sections 42 to 45
of

the said Act.

No doubt, section 46 of Act 1/1982 permits

withholding or reduction or withdrawal of the
grant-in-

aid. We have already referred to the gist of this

provision but now we shall extract the same:

“S.46–Power of Government to withhold, reduce or
withdraw grant:–

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the
Government may, after such enquiry as they may deem fit,
withhold, reduce or withdraw any grant payable to an
educational institution having regard to the funds at the
disposal of the Government or the conduct and efficiency and
the financial condition of such institution, after giving an
opportunity to the manager of the institution concerned of
making a representation against such withholding, reduction
or withdrawal.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the
provisions of sub-section (1) or any other provision of this
Act, the Government may, after such enquiry as they may deem
fit, withhold, reduce or withdraw any grant payable to any
educational institution if the manager of the institution
concerned,–

(i) fails to fulfil or any of the conditions of grant;

(ii) denies admission to any citizen on grounds only
of religion, race, caste, language or any of them;

(iii) allows any employee of the institution to take
part in any agitation intended to bring or attempt to bring
into hatred or contempt, or intended to excite or attempt to
excite disaffection towards, the Government established by
law in India;

(iv) directly or indirectly encourages any propaganda
or practice of wounding the religious feelings of any class
of citizens of India or insulting the religion or the
religious beliefs of that class;

(v) is guilty of falsification of registers, of misuse
of funds for purposes other than those for which they are
collected;

(vi) fails to remedy within such reasonable time as
may be specified by the competent authority, the defects in
the maintenance of accounts pointed out by the auditors; or

(vii) fails to restore, within the time specified by
the competent authority, an employee whose services have
been wrongfully dispensed with or fails to pay him any
arrears of salary or other benefits when directed to do so
by the competent authority.

(3) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, every
order passed under this section shall be final and shall not
be questioned in any court of law.”

It will be seen that the power mentioned in the first

part of clause (1)(a) could be exercised after inquiry

by the State having regard to the funds at the
disposal

of the Government. Under the second part of clause

(1)(a), this power could be exercised based upon
conduct

and efficiency or financial position of the
institution

also after giving opportunity. Under clause (2) of

section 46, the power could be exercised if the
manager

had committed certain irregularities as found in an

inquiry where the manager is heard. It is clear that

when Government appointed a Committee to go into

complaints, it was exercising the option under section

46(2). So far as section 46(1) is concerned, there
are

no proceedings issued under section 46(1) and no
inquiry

conducted under that provision.

Right to arrears flows from Act 1/82 and Act 22/88 and
Committee;s report and is not created by any Government
orders:

It is not in dispute that after Act 1/82, the

respondent-school was admitted to grant-in-aid under
the

said Act in GO 347(Ed.) dated 1.8.86 because the
school

satisfied the conditions in GO 238(Ed.) dated 27.5.86.

Now, after complaints were received, the grant was

kept in abeyance and the cases of the respondent and

others were inquired into under section 46(2).

Initially, the Government constituted a Committee in
GO

220 dated 24.2.88. Later by Act 22/88, the Committee
was

given statutory status to go into complaints. It will
be

noticed that the right to receive grant-in-aid for the

back years i.e. from 22.7.85 was declared under Act

22/88, contingent upon the recommendation of the

Committee. This is clear from section 3(2). It
states

that if the Committee recommends favourably, then the

grant is to be released in favour of an institution,

“from the date upon which it satisfies all the

conditions for admission to grant in aid specified in

the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and the Rules

made thereunder, or the grant in aid code or orders or

other instructions issued by the Government from time
to

time”. This clause, in our view, therefore directs

release of grant-in-aid from the date upon which the

school satisfies the eligibility conditions. As
already

stated sub-clause (3) of section 1 made Act 22/88

retrospective from 22.7.85. Hence it is as if the

Committee constituted under Act 22/88 was there from

1985. In our view, once the Committee gave its

clearance, the decision would therefore be effective

from 22.7.1985 in respect of all the back years from

dates anterior to the passing of Act 22/88, and the

school would be entitled to release of grant-in-aid
from

the date on which it satisfies the conditions for

receiving grant-in-aid.

It is contended for the State of Andhra Pradesh

that section 3(2) is only prospective. It is true

section 3 does not expressly say that the
recommendation

will be retro-active but from the language of section

3(2) referred to above and also because sub-section 3
of

section 1 says that the Act “be deemed to have come
into

force on the 22nd July, 1985”, in our view, the right
is

retrospectively affirmed for the back years. In other

words, the Committee’s recommendations as to
compliance

with conditions during various years from 1985 though

made after 1988 were to be treated as in existence
from

various dates after 22.7.1985 and if the institution

satisfied the conditions of the Act 1/1982 and also

conditions laid down in other GOs in the previous

years, the Committee’s recommendation in favour of any

school would be retroactive and will apply to those

back years. That the right to arrears is affirmed by

section 3 is also clear from section 5 which relates
to

an adverse recommendation of the Committee. In cases

where the Committee accepted complaints, section 5

requires refund of amounts already paid. Thus, Act

22/88 provided for payment of arrears or for refund of

amounts paid. That was the purpose in making the

provisions of that Act retrospective w.e.f.
22.7.1985.

In our view, these provisions of the Act, therefore,

clearly conferred a statutory right on the writ

petitioners to receive the grant-in-aid right from

22.7.85 onwards in the various years in which they

satisfied the conditions. The right to arrears thus

flows from the statutes and the Committee’s

recommendations and not from any Government orders.
In

other words, the basic right to receive arrears does
not

stem from any Government order in respect of the
schools

enumerated in GO 326(Ed.) dated 17.10.89 read with GO

178(Ed.) dated 23.7.90. The right stems from Act 1/82

and Act 22/88 and the findings of the Committee. This

aspect becomes important when we come to deal with Act

34/95 and as to whether it has removed the basis of
the

judgment of the learned Single Judge.

We next come to para 12 of Go 326 dated 17.10.89.

This GO contained a list of 59 schools like the

respondent wherein it was stated that the Committee
had

given favourable recommendation in favour of the writ

petitioner and other institutions. The GO stated that

these institutions would be entitled for release of

grant-in-aid w.e.f. 1.11.89 to 29.2.90 for the year

1989-90. It, however, contained a note in para 12 as

follows:

“Regarding payment of arrears to the school now
admitted to grant-in-aid, orders will be issued separately.”

In our view, the word “now” used in this GO does not

mean that these schools are identified as entitled to

grant-in-aid for the first time in 1989 in this GO

326.

This is clear from the fact that like section 3 of Act

22/88, this GO also speaks of arrears. If indeed the

previous orders relating to admission to grant-in-aid

were intended to be given a go bye as contended before

us for the State, the Government would not have

referred to the question of payment of arrears in this

GO 326. Therefore, the word “now” in our view, is
used

only to identify those schools etc referred to in

Annexure to the GO.326 and as cleared by the Committee

and was not intended to create a new prospective right

to receive grant-in-aid after 1989. Such

identification would therefore clearly relate back to

22.7.85 which was the date from which Act 22/88 became

retrospective.

Act 22/95: does not retrospectively remove the rights
created by Act 1/82 read with Act 22/88 read with the
recommendation:

Now we shall finally come to section 2 of Act

34/95. The said Act was published in Gazette on

20.9.1995 after the judgment of the learned Single

Judge. But it came into force from 17.10.89, the date
of

GO 326 which said in para 12 that the orders for
arrears

would be passed separately. Section 2 of this Act of

1995 reads as follows:

“Section 2: No arrears of grant-in- aid payable:

Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment,
decree or order of any Court or other authority, or any
order issued by the Government or any authority subordinate
to the Government, no arrears of grant-in-aid shall or shall
even be deemed to be payable to any private educational
institution admitted to grant-in-aid in pursuance of GO.326
(Ed.) dated 17.10.89 and GO.No.178 (Ed.) dated 23.7.90 for
the period between Ist September, 1985 and 31st October,
1989 and accordingly:-

(a) no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or
continued in any Court against the Government or an;y person
or authority whatsoever for the payment of any arrears of
grant-in-aid for the said period; and

(b) no Court shall enforce any decree or order
directing the payment of any arrears of grant-in-aid.”

The opening part of section 2 refer to the judgment or

decree or order of any Court. The second part deals
with

orders of other authority, or any order of Government
or

Subordinate authority. The second part deals with

rights created by Government orders.

We shall first consider the second part of section

2 as to whether the Act removes retrospectively the

right created by Act 1/82 and Act 22/88. For that

purpose, we come back to the language of section 2 of

Act 34/95.

In our view, what is removed by the Act 22/95 is

the right created by the Government orders and not the

rights created by Act 1/82 and Act 22/88. If any

Government order had conferred any right to the

institutions enumerated in the Annexure to GO 326
dated

17.10.89 read with GO 178 dated 23.7.90, it was only

those rights that were intended to be removed

retrospectively by section 2 from 17.10.89. In other

words, the legislature while enacting section 2 of Act

34/95 failed to remove the rights conferred by the

Principal Act 1/82 and Act 22/88 read with the

Committee’s declaratory findings. Further, the Act
34/95

being retrospective only from 17.10.89, it does not go

beyond that date into the back years.

So far as the first part of section 2 read with

section 46 of Act 1/82, the State has also not placed

any material before Court to sustain the order of
denial

of arrears for want of funds. What budgetary

allocations were made in the concerned years were
never

placed before Court. There is also no proof of any

inquiry as required by the first part of section 46(1)

of Act 1/82. Thus, under the first and second parts
of

section 2 of Act 34/95, there is no removal of the

statutory right created by Act I/82 and Act 22/88,
read

with the recommendations of the Committee. Point 1 is

decided accordingly.

Point 2:

Act 22/95 cannot set aside the judgment of the learned
Single Judge

Now section 2 of the Act 34/95 also purports to

nullify the effect of the judgment of the learned
Single

Judge. It is well settled that the legislature cannot

overrule a judgment by passing a law to that effect

unless it removes the basis of the legal rights upon

which the judgment is based, with retrospective effect

and provided there is no violation of any
constitutional

provision in such withdrawal of rights
retrospectively.

In the present case, we are not going into the

question whether any provision of the Constitution is

violated while passing Act 34/95 denying arrears of

grant-in-aid retrospectively. However, in our view,

inasmuch as the rights created by Act 1/82 and Act
22/88

read with the Committee’s recommendations have not
been

nullified by Act 22/95, the judgment of the learned

Single Judge remains effective. The basis of the

judgment has not been removed. We have already shown

that the rights flowing from the Acts were not
touched.

Only rights flowing from Government orders were taken

away retrospectively. It is therefore necessary to

give effect to the judgment of the learned Single

Judge. The writ appeal was rightly dismissed.

For the above reasons, which are somewhat

different from the reasons given by the Division
Bench,

we dismiss this Civil Appeal. The arrears of the
grant-

in-aid as declared above as per Act I/82 and Act 22/88

and also as directed by the learned Single Judge shall

now be released in favour of the writ petitioner.

There

will be no order as to costs.

……………..J. [M.JAGANNADHA RAO]

NEW DELHI; ……………..J. August 7, 2000.
[K.G.BALAKRISHNAN]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2422 OF 1997

Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Others ..Appellants

Versus

G.V.K.Girls High School ..Respondent

—-

Dear Brother Sri Balakrishnan,

Draft Judgment in the above-mentioned matter is

sent herewith for your kind consideration please.

With regards,


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.178 seconds.