High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Shaheed Kanshi Ram Memorial … vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 May, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shaheed Kanshi Ram Memorial … vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 May, 2009
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH



                                    Civil Writ Petition No.7033 of 2009
                                           Date of Decision: May 11, 2009


Shaheed Kanshi Ram Memorial College of Physical Education,
Bhago Majra, District Mohali
                                                               .....PETITIONER(S)

                                    VERSUS


State of Punjab & Others
                                                           .....RESPONDENT(S)
                              .          .         .


CORAM:             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -         Mr. T.P.S. Tung, Advocate, for the
                   petitioner.



                                .        .         .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

                   Learned           counsel           contends       that        the

petitioner is entitled to release of grant-in-aid.

The same, however, is not being released and

therefore, the petitioner-College is not in a

position to pay the salaries.

In this regard, learned counsel has

relied on the decision dated 21.3.2009 of this Court

in Civil Writ Petition No.4464 of 2009 titled ‘BLM Girls College, Arya

Samaj, Nawanshahr vs. State of Punjab & Others’.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Anil Sharma, Senior Deputy

Advocate General, Punjab, on the asking of the Court

accepts notice. Copy of the petition has been handed
CWP No.7033 of 2009 [2]

over.

Learned counsel for the respondents

has not been able to dispute that the grant-in-aid

is required to be released in terms of judgment

relied upon on behalf of the petitioner.

In the case of BLM Girls College, Arya Samaj,

Nawanshahr (supra), this Court, while relying on judgment

dated 18.12.2007 in C.W.P. No.14340 of 2006, titled `Arya

College, Ludhiana Vs. State of Punjab & Others’ and decision dated

24.4.2008 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.5393 of 2008,

titled ‘Ramgaria College of Education, Phagwara vs. State of Punjab &

Others’, has held:-

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case; in terms of judgment rendered in Arya College’s
case (supra) and decision rendered in C.W.P. No.5393 of
2008, decided on 24.4.2008, in case titled ‘Ramgaria
College of Education, Phagwara vs. State of Punjab and
others’, it is directed that the respondents shall pay 85% of
the grant-in-aid due to the petitioner within a period of 3
months after clearance of objections by the petitioner. So
far as balance 15% of the amount of grant-in-aid is
concerned, the petitioner may submit separate
representations to the respondents.”

In Ramgaria College of Education, Phagwara

(supra), the following has been held by the Division

Bench of this Court:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the judgments State of Maharashtra versus
Manubhai Pragali Vashi and Others, 1995(5) Supreme
Court Cases 730, Government of A.P. and Others
versus G.V.K.Girls High School, 2000(8) Supreme
Court Cases 370, and State of Haryana and others
versus Babita Yadav and Others, 2004(13) Supreme
Court Cases 734, to contend that the paucity of funds or
financial contributions cannot be taken a ground to deny
the grant-in-aid to Government recognized private
colleges while extending such facility to recognized
private colleges by the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we
are of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is
CWP No.7033 of 2009 [3]

squarely covered by the decision in the State of
Maharashtra versus Manubhai Pragali Vashi and
Others, Government of A.P. and Others versus
G.V.K.Girls High School and State of Haryana and
others versus Babita Yadav and Others (supra). The
State Government cannot take up the ground that due to
paucity of funds, it is unable to give grant-in-aid to the
colleges.

In view of the above, we hold that the respondents
shall pay 85% of the grant-in-aid as claimed by the
petitioner within a period of three months, after the
clearance of the objections by the petitioner. The
petitioner shall try to clear all the objections raised by the
State Government within a period of one month from
today. As far as balance 10% of the amount of grant-in-aid
case is concerned, the petitioner may submit a separate
representation to the respondents. The respondents are also
further directed to release the grant-in-aid to the petitioner
in future also in time.”

In another judgment dated 19.2.2008

rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ

Petition No.3191 of 2007 titled `The Managing Committee, Guru

Gobind Singh College, Saghera, Barnala, District Sangrur vs. State of Punjab

& Another’, similar view has been taken as in the case

of Ramgaria College of Education, Phagwara (supra).

It has been brought out that State of

Punjab filed a Special Leave Petition before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed against the

judgment rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.3191 of

2007. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while

dealing with SLP No.15798 of 2008 dismissed the petition

on 8.12.2008 by passing the following order:-

“Delay condoned.

We find no merit in this petition which is accordingly
dismissed. However, two months time is granted to the
petitioner State of Punjab to release the amount which is
due and payable to the respondent College subject to
removal of objections pointed by the High Court in the
impugned order.”

                      Considering                 the            facts            and
 CWP No.7033 of 2009                                   [4]



circumstances of the case; in terms of judgments to

which reference has been made hereinabove, it is

directed that the respondents shall pay 85% of the

grant-in-aid due to the petitioner within a period

of 4 months after clearance of objections by the

petitioner. So far as balance 15% of the amount of

grant-in-aid due is concerned, the petitioner may

submit separate representations to the respondents.

                      Petition   is    allowed   in         the   above

terms.

                                                      (AJAI LAMBA)
May 11, 2009                                             JUDGE
avin