Adijati Vikas Mandal vs State of Gujarat thru. J.D. Bhad and Another

J.B. Pardiwala, J.—In this appeal, the Appellant-original Petitioner seeks to challenge judgment and order dated 31.08.2010passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7099 of 2010 whereby, the learned Single Judge rejected the petition of the Appellant Petitioner.

2 Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under:

2.1. The Petitioner is a charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. In June 2009, the Petitioner-trust applied for opening a new secondary school in the name of Shri Aditya Bariya Madhyamik Shala situated at Moti Handi, Po. Bilwani, Taluka:Jahod, District: Dahod in response to the advertisement issued by Respondent No. 2 i.e. Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board. The Respondent-Board refused to accord permission to the Petitioner-trust to start a new secondary school substantially on the following grounds:

i. Building proposed to be used for opening of the school is not suitable for running the school and the building is constructed for residential purpose.

ii. The proposed school building is not health oriented with no proper facility of air and light and no separate provisions for sanitary have been made for girls and;

iii. The land proposed to be used for playground is governed by the provisions of Section 73A and 73A Aof the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the same is not owned, occupied and in possession of the trust.

2.2 It appears that the order passed by the Board rejecting the application was challenged in appeal before the State Government and the State Government also dismissed the appeal confirming the order01.09.2009 passed by the Board. It is at that stage that the Appellant-trust preferred Special Civil Application No. 7099 of 2010. The learned Single Judge having noticed all the deficiencies, which were found by the Respondents, refused to grant any relief to the Appellant-Petitioner and rejected the petition.

We have heard learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya appearing for the Appellant and learned A.G.P. Mrs. Krina Calla appearing for the Respondents.

Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya would submit that in none of the objections raised by the Respondent authorities, there is any substance. He would submit that there are no deficiencies as alleged by the Respondents. He further submitted that the land is not governed under the provisions of Section 73A or 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the land is of the ownership of the chairman of the trust and he is agreed to part with the land for the purpose of the activities of the trust.

Per contra, learned A.G.P. Ms. Calla submitted that both the authorities have recorded concurrent findings as regards the deficiencies noticed in the infrastructure of the trust and having noticed all these deficiencies, the learned Single Judge also rightly rejected the petition. The learned A.G.P. submitted that the Appellant is not entitled to any relief. The learned A.G.P. has relied upon the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary, Education Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar wherein, the following averments have been made:

I state that the Appellant does not fulfill certain requirements as are necessary to be granted permission for secondary school. While rejecting the application of the Appellant the authorities have specifically stated in their orders the short comings as a result of which the Appellant was not granted permission for secondary school from June, 2009. The same shortcomings have clarified specifically as under:

The building proposed for the new school is not fit for a school. It seems that this building is meant for residence. Therefore, the same could not said to be a proper building for proposed school.

The hygienic condition of this building is not satisfactory. The building does not have adequate and satisfactory separate urinal facilities for girls.

The Appellant has not entered into a rent contract for 30 years for the building proposed for school.

The learned A.G.P. has relied upon the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Gandhinagar wherein, the following averments have been made:

I say and submit that the Appellant Trust is not fulfilling the requisite criteria and, therefore, the application made by the Appellant Trust came to be rejected vide order dated 1.9.2009, which is self-explanatory. I say and submit that before passing the order dated 1.9.2009, the Board has given opportunity to the Appellant to comply with the infirmities/deficiencies noticed for opening new School vide letter dated 18.6.2009. The Appellant Trust has miserably failed to comply with the said formalities and, therefore, having left with no option, the order dated 1.9.2009 came to be passed by the Board, whereby the application made by the Appellant Trust for opening School w.e.f. June 2009 is rejected. I say and submit that the Board has assigned five reasons for not permitting the Appellant Trust to open the Secondary School. The said reasons are as under:

a. The building, where the Appellant Trust wants to open the School is not suitable for School.

b. The building, where the Appellant intends to open the School is of residential purpose, which is evident from the documents produced on record.

c. The Appellant has not produced the document showing the availability of health/sanitary facilities in the proposed School building as required under Regulation 9(13)(1). The School building should be having appropriate health/sanitary facilities and ventilation as are required under Regulation (13)(1) and the Trust should also have sufficient, satisfactory facilities for girl students, especially when the Trust intends to open School for co-education.

d. The Trust is having only balance ofRs.1,18,085/-, which is not sufficient for opening up a non-grant School. As per the norms of Education Department, the Trust is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-to Rs. 2,00,000/�when permission is being granted for opening School. The bank balance is not sufficient so as to meet with the facilities as well as the salary to be paid to the staff. The Mandal has miserably failed to produce sufficient documents with regard to financial stability. The Appellant has also not executed lease-deed of 30 years with regard to rented premise/ground.

e. The land meant for ground is of 73/A and 73/A Aof Form and there is no likelihood of NA Permission being granted. Accordingly the land cannot be permitted for the ground meant for School.

Taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error, much less an error of law, in rejecting the writ petition warranting any interference at our hands in this appeal. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.