Gurudeo Vidya Prasarak Mandal vs State Of Maharashtra And Others

Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned Counsel for the parties agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2). Heard Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

3). The contention of Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is that the order permanently cancelling the recognition granted to the

petitioner School has been passed without following the due process of law, ignoring the principles of natural justice and relying upon 1006wp1906.21

2/6 something, which was never subjected to any kind of scrutiny for testing the veracity of the material. The further submission is that confidential

report, which has been heavily relied upon while passing the order of cancellation of recognition, was itself under cloud for lack of any authority under

law for the author of the report to take any inspection inasmuch as copy of this report was never made available for perusal and preparation of proper

defence to the petitioner School. Another contention is that if any material adverse to the petitioner allegedly contained in the confidential report was

to be relied upon for drawing adverse inference against the petitioner School, copy of such report must have been given to the petitioner to answer the

allegations made against the petitioner. The further submission is that there are at least two inspection reports - one of date 12/2/2020 and another of

date 8/11/2020, which are completely in favour of the petitioner School, but these inspection reports have been ignored while passing the order of

withdrawal of recognition by the Authorities, though the second inspection report dated 8/11/2020 shows that the School was closed due to prevalence

of COVID-19 pandemic. Based on these submissions, prayer has been made for grant of ex parte interim relief while issuing notice.

4). We. have. gone. through. the withdrawal of recognition passed by the respondent no.2 and also the order of respondent no.1 appellate authority,

both of which have been impugned in this petition. We have also gone through both the inspection reports dated 12/2/2020 and 8/11/2020. The

inspection report dated 8/11/2020 is of no use as the School could not be inspected on account of its closure following COVID-19 pandemic.

However, we find that the inspection report dated 12/2/2020, prima facie, does not contain any adverse remark or material against the petitioner

School. On going through the impugned orders, we also find that they do not make any reference to the inspection report dated 12/2/2020 and they

heavily rely upon one confidential report, which appears to have been obtained after hearing had taken place on 6/3/2020. These orders do not mention

any date of the confidential report nor do they show that copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner. They further show that there is an

admission given by the respondent no.2 that even though Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Nasik had prepared an inspection

report after his visit to the petitioner School on 10/2/2020 and even though Junior Education Extension Officer had prepared another report upon his

visit to the School on 11/2/2020, copies of both these reports were not 1006wp1906.21 4/6 furnished to the petitioner. Surprisingly enough, even these

reports, which contain some adverse findings against the petitioner, have been relied upon by the Authorities and adverse inferences have been

accordingly drawn against the petitioner. The respondent no.2 in his impugned order, of course, has given justification by relying upon the law laid

down by the Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another {(1978) 1 SCC 248) by stating that whenever it is found

that giving of notice and opportunity to be heard would obstruct taking of prompt action - specially action of preventive or remedial nature, right of

prior notice and opportunity to be heard may be excluded by implication.

5). The facts noted above, prima facie, show that the respondents have committed breach of principles of natural justice and have even relied upon

some material placed before them by somebody, not apparently authorised to conduct any inspection. We also prima facie find that reliance placed by

the respondents upon the law laid down in the case of Maneka Gandhi (supra) is misplaced as admittedly no prompt action against the petitioner has

been taken after the alleged serious lapses were noticed by the Authorities and on the contrary, sufficient time was taken by the Authorities before the

1006wp1906.21 5/6 impugned orders were passed. The first impugned order was passed on 22/9/2020 and the second impugned order has been

passed on 5/5/2021. In such a fact situation, we are of the considered view that the Authorities ought to have considered the law laid down in the case

of Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others {(2008) 16 SCC 726} where in para 20 of the judgment, the

Apex Court has held that whenever an Authority chooses to act on the materials, which are not supplied to the person against whom the decision

goes, the basic principles of natural justice must not be disregarded. The Supreme Court observed that there is an obligation to act fairly on the part of

the Administrative Authorities and this principle has been evolved only to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice.

6). In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders, prima facie, suffering from fundamental flaws deserve to be put on hold and

accordingly, we direct that there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (ii) of the petition until next date.

7) Issue notice for final disposal at the admission stage to the respondents.

8). Shri Fulzele, learned Additional Government Pleader waives notice for the respondents.

9). Stand over to 1st July 2021.