Surjeet Kaur Vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Alok Singh, J.@mdashPerusal 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 grant-in-aid school, therefore, payment cannot be made by the Government. 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.

2. Hon''ble Apex Court, in the case of Smt. Poonam Vs. Sumit Tanwar, , in paragraph Nos. 16 and 22, has observed as under:--

16. In Thakur Sukhpal Singh Vs. Thakur Kalyan Singh, , 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 or legal 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.

3. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court, if learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to address facts of the case and relevant law, it is not the duty of the Court to turn pages to find out the facts and law. Unless and until learned counsel for the petitioner is able to address as to why provisions quoted in the impugned order are not applicable, it would not be proper on the part of the Court to ask learned counsel for the respondent to justify invocation of the provisions cited in the impugned order.

4. However, keeping in mind that the litigant''s interest is supreme, I have perused the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 as well as Jharkhand State Unaided Educational Institution (Grant-in-Aid) Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ''Central Act'' and ''State Act'' respectively).

5. Under Sections 10 and 10''A'' of the Central Act 2004, permission is required to establish and run a Minority Educational Institution and such recognised Minority Educational Institution may seek affiliation to any University of its choice. Act nowhere provides automatic grant to such recognised or affiliated Institution under Sections 10 and 10''A'' of the Central Act by the respective State Government.

6. As per Section 4 of the State Act 2004, State Government may sanction following grant in its discretion:--

(i) Maintenance or Recurring Grant.

(ii) Non-recurring grant for equipments, building etc.

(iii) Ad hoc, recurring or non-recurring grant to an institution which is of All India character and whose projects and activities are approved by the Central or State Government on such terms and conditions which it deems fit to impose.

(iv) Such other grants, which may be sanctioned from time to time under the rules framed for the purpose by the State Government.

7. However, educational institution desirous of getting grant has to apply u/s 6 of the State Act and thereafter grant may be sanctioned.

8. In the present case, no material is made available on record to say that Punjab Kanya Uchcha Vidyalaya, a Minority Institution, has ever applied u/s 6 of the State Act and grant was ever sanctioned by the Government u/s 4 of the Act.

9. In the opinion of this Court, any Government Order, Rule or Regulation, contrary to the provisions of the State Act stands repealed after enactment of the State Act, in view of Section 18 thereof.

10. Moreover, petitioner has not impleaded Minority Educational Institution as one of the respondents.

11. Applying the broad provision of Order 1 Rule 9 C.P.C., present petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of most necessary party. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, present writ petition stands dismissed.