C/m Bapu Poorva Madhyamik Vid. and Another vs Shri Anoop Chandra Pandey, Prin. Sec. Basic Edu. and Others

Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

The applicant alleges contempt of the judgment dated 06.10.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 1096 of 2007 (C/m Bapu Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.). Learned Counsel states that the Petitioner''s institution was to be considered for bringing in grant-in-aid list of the State Government, however, the claim was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner''s institution did not have any proof of title of the land in question. Learned Counsel states that the Writ Court allowed the writ petition by holding that in case the Petitioner furnishes proof of requisite land belonging to the institution, the authorities were directed to consider the claim of the Petitioner and thereafter recommend the Petitioner''s institution for taking into grant-in-aid list of the State Government, in view of the Government Order dated 02.12.2006. The State Government was directed that it shall extend the said benefits to the said institution within another period of 2 months. Learned Counsel states that requisite proof of land belonging to the institution was filed, however, the opposite parties have illegally refused the claim of the Petitioner by an order dated 07.02.2010 filed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit supporting this contempt petition. According to him when the only objection was with respect to proof of title of land and that had been satisfied they could not reject the claim of the Petitioner on any other ground.

Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 while relying on the affidavits filed by the opposite parties has stated that insofar as the proof of land is concerned the same has been filed and to that effect an order dated 30.03.2010 (Annexure No. 3 to the counter affidavit of the Opposite Party No. 1) has been passed, however, under the Government Order dated 07.09.2006 Condition No. 2(6) has not been satisfied by the Petitioner''s institution and, therefore, it cannot be brought in the grant-in-aid list.

Insofar as the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is concerned, the earlier objection raised by the authorities appears to have been satisfied by the Petitioner but under the Government Order, wherein conditions are provided for bringing an institution in the grant-in-aid list, it appears from the order passed by the authorities that they have not been satisfied. If there be other conditions also the Government Order itself provides for satisfying the conditions and if they are not satisfied, the institution cannot be brought in grant-in-aid list.

Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the recitation in the order dated 07.02.2010 and 30.03.2010 is incorrect. Insofar as that submission is concerned, this Court in its contempt jurisdiction cannot set aside an order passed by the authority on the directions issued by the Writ Court to consider the claim on its merits. In case, the applicant is aggrieved by the order it is open for him to assail the same before the appropriate forum. The Contempt Court cannot enter into the merits of the order for the purpose of its legality or illegality.

The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.

No order is passed as to costs.