LITTLE STAR ENGLISH HIGH SCHOOL AND ANR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Little Star English High School And Anr
State Of Assam And 3 Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. -
(1.) Mr. M. Kataky, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department and Ms. M.D. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
(2.) The petitioner No.1 being a private school on being represented by the petitioner No.2 being its Principal has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Inspector of School, Kamrup (M). By the said order, it was recorded that during inspection, it was found that the school in question does not have the required land and is operating in a private residence, which is located over 1 katha of land. It was also recorded that the school is operated in a thickly populated area and there are allegations from the local people as regards the inconveniences that are caused because of the operation of the school. It was recorded that the students are to attend their classes in small rooms which does not meet the requirement of the environment under which a school is required to function. Accordingly, by arriving at a conclusion that there is a violation of the provision of the Assam Non-Government Educational Institution (Regulation & Managment) Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder, the order of 30.01.2016 was passed that the school will not run in its present location and that the students be shifted to some other school. The said order of the Inspector dated 30.01.2016 has been assailed on the ground that under the provision of Section 24 of the Act of 2006, the Inspector of School does not have the jurisdiction to pass an order of closure of a school and it is only the Government or the Director who may pass such order and that after giving a reasoned opportunity of being heard. We are in agreement with Mr. M. Kataky, learned counsel that the Inspector of School did not have the jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Act of 2006 to pass the order dated 30.01.2016 ordering a closure of the school even if there is any violation of the provision of the Act of 2006. Further the order also reveals that no opportunity was given to the petitioner school prior to the order of closure being passed. But however Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel by referring to the provision of Section 6 and 10 of the Act of 2006 submits that there are certain definite requirements under the law for operating a school and the records reveal that the petitioner school does not have many of such requirement as provided under Section 6 and 10.
(3.) In the aforesaid circumstance, as because the order of 30.01.2016 was without authority, we hereby set aside the said order. But at the same time to take care of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Secondary Education Department that the school in question does not fulfill the requirement of Section 6 and 10 of the Act of 2006, we give the liberty to the authorities to proceed against the petitioner school as per law, if so advised.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.