- (1.) Perusal of the impugned order reveals that claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that school has never applied under The Jharkhand State Unaided Educational Institution (grant in aid) Act, 2004 [Jharkhand State Vitta Rahit Shikshan Sansthan (grant in aid) Act 2004] and it was not recognised as grantinaid school, therefore, payment cannot be made by the Government.
(2.) On being asked repeatedly, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to cite Jharkhand State Unaided Educational Institution (grant in aid) Act, 2004 [Jharkhand State Vitta Rahit Shikshan Sansthan (grant in aid) Act 2004] to argue that no recognition is required, as mentioned in the impugned order and grant is automatic. He contends that he has not seen the Act of 2004. He, while remaining adamant, contends that 2004 Act should be shown/cited by the Government Advocate to justify the rejection of the petitioner's claim.
(3.) Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Poonam Vs. Sumit Tanwar, 2010 4 SCC 460, in paragraph Nos. 16 and 22, has observed as under: "16. In Sukhpal Singh Vs. Kalyan Singh, 1963 AIR(SC) 146, this Court has held that in the absence of proper assistance to the court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on the part of the court to decide the case, for the simple reason that unless the lawyer renders the proper assistance to the court, the court is not able to decide the case. It is not proper for the court itself to decide the controversy. The counsel cannot just raise the issues in his petition and leave it to the court to give its decision on those points after going through the record and determining the correctness thereof. It is not for the court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points. 22. There is another aspect of the matter. In case the petitioner's counsel is not able to raise a factual orlegal issue, though such a point may have a good merit, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not "have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted" in this behalf. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice." ;