- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE relief claimed in this writ petition is for a writ of mandamus commanding the State of U. P. through its Education Secretary and the Inspector Sanskrit Pathshalayen, Allahabad, to consider giving grant-in-aid to the Primary Section of the Institution. This writ petition has been filed by the committee of management of the institution. The case as set up in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the writ petition is that the primary section of the institution was initially granted recognition by the then Deputy District Inspector of Schools, Smt. Ranuka Chaturvedi for holding classes up to 5th class vide its order dated 21-4-52. In paragraphs 4 to 6 of the writ petition it has been stated that in pursuance of some Government orders, certain information was sought for to bring the school in the list of grant-in-aid. It is alleged, that the said information was given to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but no final decision was taken. Even though, as stated in paragraph 8, other primary schools were taken on grant-in-aid, discriminating against the petitioner. Therefore, it is alleged, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by the State. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that no Competent Authority had granted any affiliation to the primary school and a list was prepared of all duly affiliated schools, but the petitioner's school was not included therein. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the alleged affiliation was only a recognition which is annexed with this writ petition but, it is further alleged, that it does not bear the signature of the Competent Authority. In paragraph 7 it has been alleged that the recognition letter issued by Smt. Ranuka Chaturvedi was cancelled subsequently when it was found that it was passed on incorrect facts and, therefore, no right flowed therefrom to the primary school. A supplementary counter-affidavit sworn by the Associate District Inspector of Schools has also been filed in pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 15-9-1997. In paragraphs 3 and 4 it has been stated there is no separate scheme for according grant-in-aid to Sanskrit Schools. The history of the institution has been traced and it is alleged that the Sanskrit School is neither covered by U. P. Intermediate Education Act nor the Basic Education Act. It is also submitted that there is no concept of Primary Sanskrit Schools under the aforesaid acts and the same are dealt with by Sampurna Nand Sanskrit Vidyalaya. It is in this background that the claim of the petitioner has to be considered. It is by now well settled that to claim a writ of mandamus, the petitioner has to show not only public or statutory duty but also has to show a clear enforceable right in his favour. Mandamus, as is well settled normally can be issued at the behest of a, or, body of individuals when it has any statutory or common law right. In the case of J. R. Raghupathy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1988 (4) SCC 364, the apex Court held that a mandamus cannot be issued to enforce any guidelines and also refused interference under Article 226 on breach of such guidelines framed by the Government under its executive powers, especially in absence of mala fides or extraneous considerations. In Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller I & E, AIR 1970 SC 769, the apex Court held that even though there may be allegations of breach of fundamental right, the relief of mandamus is discretionary and is to be exercised reasonably. In a Full Bench the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Pritam Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 Punjab & Haryana 228 (245) (F. B.), has held that in order to maintain a petition for mandamus, the petitioner will have to show not only public or statutory duty, but also a clear right for its enforcement. In the case of Motor Transport Association v. Sr. Superintendent of Police, AIR 1974 Allahabad 448, this Court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued when there is no legal obligation on the officer against whom it is asked for in respect of the relief prayed. In the case of K. N. Guru Swami v. State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 137, the apex Court, when confronted as to whether unapproved bid could entitle the petitioner for a mandamus, held that until and unless there is some right in favour of the petitioner, no mandamus could be issued. Further, in the case of K. V. Rajlakshmiah Shetty and another v. State of Mysore and another, AIR 1967 SC 993, the Supreme Court was confronted with a situation where the state had granted some concession to one set of persons which led another set of person to claim those concessions. The Supreme Court held that such concession could not be claimed as a matter of right and refused to issue any mandamus in their favour.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any common law or statutory right in its favour which could spur this Court into exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction by issuing a writ of mandamus. This writ petition has been filed not by the teachers of the school, who it could be said, may directly get benefit by issue of such a direction. THE petitioner is the committee of management which has not stated anywhere in the petition as to how it has any locus to claim such a relief. No foundation has been laid to issue such a direction in favour of the present petitioners. Further the crucial averments with regard to recognition and affiliation have been specifically denied by the State Government. In fact the State has gone to the extent to accuse the petitioners of trying to mislead the Court by making incorrect allegations and filing documents which, according to the State, was non-existent. THE stand of State is that the school has absolutely no nexus with either the Intermediate Education Act or the Basic Education Act. Though the petitioner, on the strength of the averments made in a supplementary affidavit, has tried to urge that the stand of the State is untenable and against the records. But these issues are highly factual and inextricably disputed. This Court, by its very nature, is not dressed to enter into such factual disputes. The learned Counsel has relied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court rendered in Ramesh Upadhayay and another v. State of U. P. and others, 1993 (2) UPLBEC 945, to base his claim for issue of mandamus in his favour. In Ramesh Upadhayay's case (supra) the teachers had approached the Court. The Court was confronted with Government orders to contend a right in their favour. From a perusal of the judgment it does not appear that it involved disputed questions of fact relating to recognition and affiliation. Petitioners in this case have also not filed the alleged Government orders or have produced before the Court. Though, the learned Judge in Ramesh Upadhayay's case has issued a general mandamus, therefore, in my opinion this petition is not maintainable once a general mandamus has already been issued.;