METAS ADVENTIST SCHOOL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging the impugned notices dated 11.02.2019, 02.03.2019 and 03.02.2020, which are at Annexure-A, page No.21, Annexure-C, page No.26 and Annexure-G, page No.35. The said notices are issued on the ground that despite the clear prohibition for collection of capitation fee, under whatever name it is collected, as provided under Section 13 of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as also Rule-12 of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), it is being collected by the petitioner. From the impugned notices, it is clear that on a complaint made by some parents of the students that the donations in breach of provisions of the Act and Rules is being collected from them by the School, and therefore, the authority entrusted an inquiry to the officer and pursuant thereto the Inquiry Officer, it appears that after collecting certain documents from the school itself, has submitted the report to the authority.

(2.) Mr. Dipak Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner - School submitted that the notices issued by the District Education Officer, Surat is without jurisdiction as Rule-12 provides that it should have been issued either by the Director or such officer as authorized by him and not by the District Education Officer. Again, he has submitted that the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 27.11.2019 is not provided to the petitioner.

(3.) So far as jurisdiction aspect is concerned, in any of the reply to three notices, there is no whisper about the authority of the District Education Officer to issue notice is challenged by the petitioner - School. It being a question alike territorial jurisdiction, it cannot be raised, more particularly, when proceedings before the authority is still pending, by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Once he has submitted to the jurisdiction of DEO to issue impugned notices and never objected to such a jurisdiction of DEO in issuing notice, he cannot object to the same, that too, in an independent petition before this Court challenging the very issuance of notices, as without authority of law.