RAJAN ROY - (1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner society and the Vocational Inter College challenging an order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the Additional , (Secondary U.P.) asking the petitioners to remove the deficiency mentioned therein within 15 days failing which it would be treated as if the petitioner did not have anything to say about it and accordingly further action would be taken under the Act i.e. The U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
(2.) Dr. L.P. Mishra Submitted that recently another notice dated 27.05.2020 has been received that if the deficiencies are not removed by 30.06.2020 then action would be taken under Sub-section 3 of Section 16-D of the Act, 1921. The contention of Dr. L.P. Mishra is that the deficiencies which are being asked to be removed cannot be removed as the land in question where the Sabhagar etc. has been built belongs to the Society and not to the College in respect of which proceedings under Section 16-D have been initiated. It is also his submission that under Section 16-D(1) the Director may cause a recognised institution to be inspected form time to time and under Sub-section 2 thereof the Director may direct a management to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. Based on this he contends that in the instant case on an application/complaint having been filed by the wife of Ramashankar Dwivedi, a former teacher of the institution who was dismissed and which was addressed to the Member of Parliament from Lucknow who happens to be the Home Minister of this Country, the representative of the Member of the Parliament wrote to the DIOS, thereupon the DIOS on his own constituted a fact finding inquiry consisting of three officers and based on the report of such fact finding committee, which was forwarded to the Director for action under Section 16-D, the Director has straight away issued the order under Sub-section 2 of Section 16-D asking the petitioner to remove the deficiencies without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to rebut the findings in the inquiry report. He says that in view of the averments made in the writ petition, the impugned order is not at all justified but no opportunity has been given to place the version of the petitioner before the Director. He says that in the event the deficiency is not removed by 30.06.2020 then the Director would act under Sub-section 3 of Section 16-D and recommend either to the Board for the withdrawal of recognition or to the State Government for appointment of an authorised controller. He says that the institutions in question are very old and reputed institution of Lucknow and their functioning should not be allowed to be thwarted on such flimsy grounds. Dr. Mishra also submitted that serious allegations of malafide have been made against the DIOS, Lucknow who has been arrayed by name.
(3.) Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the impugned order is nothing but a notice and if the petitioners submit their explanation to the Director then obviously it would be considered. He says that for this reason this petition at this stage is not maintainable.;