Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2400/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2400 of 2009
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4607 of 2009
=================================================
VITHALBHAI
FULABHAI PATEL - Appellant(s)
Versus
DISTRICT
EDUCATION OFFICER & 2 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
GIRISH M DAS for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR DEVANG VYAS, AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR RR VAKIL for Respondent(s) :
3,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 10/03/2010
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
The
writ petition was preferred by the appellants on behalf of the
guardian of students of SK Patel Madhyamik School with the allegation
that the School was charging more fees than what was ordered by
Gujarat Madhyamik and Ucchatar Madhyamik Board, Gandhinagar. The
learned Single Judge has refused to entertain the writ petition and,
therefore, this appeal has been preferred.
2. The
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd
respondent – School referred to the affidavit in reply filed by the
District Education Officer, the 1st respondent, wherein
the following statements have been made :-
“6. I
state and submit that upon receiving such report the School
Authorities were directed to refund such additional fees collected to
each individual students and necessary endorsements from each
students to the said effect was required to be submitted within 10
days, filing which punitive action against the School was ordered to
be taken.
7. I
state and submit that during the Audit for the years 2005-06 and
2006-07 it was also found that the School has failed to collect fees
from some of the students. Pursuant to such lesser recovery of fees
the grant payable to the School was deducted to the extent of
Rs.17,750/- and recovery to such extent is also reflected from the
School Records.
8. I
state and submit that the School has complied with the directions and
returned the additional fees to each of the students and endorsement
from each student to that effect was also produced by the School
Authorities.”
3. In
view of such stand taken by the respondent, nothing survives in this
case. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
[S.J.
MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.]
[AKIL
KURESHI, J.]
sundar/-
Top