Allahabad High Court
C/M SRI GANGADEEN DWIVEDI SANSKRIT UCHCHATAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U P AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Holding
The Court held that it could not directly restore the grant or recognition but remitted the matter to the State Government to decide on restoration on merits, allowing the petitioner to file a fresh representation.
Summary
The Committee of Management of Shri Gangadeen Dwivedi Sanskrit Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, a grant‑in‑aid Sanskrit school, had its state aid and recognition cancelled in 2009 due to alleged infrastructural deficiencies and lack of clear property description. Earlier High Court orders quashed the cancellation, directing a fresh consideration, but the State Government again rejected the petitioner's representation in July 2018. The petitioners argued that the cancellation should be restored to the pre‑2009 status and cited a 2014 Government Order that reinstated aid to similar institutions subject to conditions. The State contended that the institution remained building‑less and that new policies precluded any relief. The Court found that while it could not directly restore the grant or recognition, the matter must be remitted to the State for a merits‑based decision, permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation within four months.
Issues considered
- Whether the State Government's cancellation of grant‑in‑aid and recognition violated principles of natural justice.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of grant and recognition based on the status prior to 10‑08‑2009.
- Whether the 22‑05‑2014 Government Order restoring aid to similar institutions applies to the petitioner.
- Whether the State's new policies can lawfully deny relief to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Act, 2000 — s. Statute 12.31
Subjects
- grant-in-aid
- recognition
- natural justice
- infrastructural deficiency
- restoration of grant
- Sanskrit education
- state government order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 27786 of 2018
C/M Sri Gangadeen Dwivedi Sanskrit Uchchatar
Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another .....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U P And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Om Prakash Vishwakarma, Radha Kant
Ojha (Senior Advocate), Shivendu
Ojha, Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shesh Kumar Srivastava
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Om
Prakash Vishwakarma for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel
and Shri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is Committee of Management of Shri Gangadeen
Dwivedi Sanskrit Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chhibramau,
Umarda, Kannauj. The said institution imparts education in Sanskrit at
secondary level. It was included in grant-in-aid list of the State
Government. The institution was established in the year 1965 and is
affiliated with Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi. Later
on, U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Act, 2000 came into
existence, as a result whereof, institution was affiliated with the said
Board.
3. As per the pleadings contained in the petition, petitioners' institution
was receiving aid from the State Government. The controversy began in
the year 2009 when an order was passed by the State Government on
10.08.2009 on account of the fact that, during the course of inspection, it
was found that one Rajesh Kumar, land owner, had given his property
comprising of three rooms and one verandah for the purposes of running
the institution, however, during the course of verification of the
documents, it was found that no clear description of the property was
indicated. Consequently, the State Government permanently cancelled the
WRIC No. 27786 of 2018
2
grant. In furtherance of the order dated 10.08.2009, another order was
passed by the Board on 15.10.2013 observing that as per Statute 12.31,
the recognition of the institution stands automatically cancelled.
4. The orders dated 10.08.2009 and 15.10.2013 were challenged by the
petitioners before this Court by filing Writ-C Nos. 20960 of 2015 and
22209 of 2014. Both the petitions were allowed vide order dated
09.01.2018 and the orders dated 10.08.2009 and 14.10.2013 were
quashed. However, this Court, having found violation of principles of
natural justice, remitted the matter to the respondents to look into the
report and take a decision afresh regarding recognition of the petitioners'
institution and also as to whether the petitioner has to be granted financial
aid.
5. In furtherance of this Court's order, re-determination was made by the
State Government and the order dated 05.07.2018 was passed rejecting
the petitioners' representation. It is the said order that has been impugned
in the present petition.
6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the proceedings began only on
account of infrastructural shortcomings qua institution that no indication
of the Arazi number was made in some affidavit brought before the
authorities. However, when, in furtherance of the High Court's order, the
matter was re-examined, finding was recorded that at the time when
inspection was done in May, 2008, the institution did not possess with a
building and that the registered deed was executed only in the month of
December, 2008.
7. Submission is that once the earlier orders were quashed, the situation
would be that the petitioners' status which was existing prior to the first
order dated 10.08.2009, would stand restored back to the said point of
time and, therefore, even if the representation of the petitioner was
rejected without assigning any reason except that the same aspect of the
infrastructural infirmity was re-noticed, the petitioners have a case of their
restoration of grant.
8. Shri Khare has further referred to a Government Order dated
22.05.2014, annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit
WRIC No. 27786 of 2018
3
dated 01.05.2024, and submission has been made that on identical
grounds where the strength of the students was found to be zero or the
institutions were found as buildingless, grant of 157 Sanskrit institutions
was restored subject to certain conditions, however, the respondents
having not even followed the said Government Order, order impugned is
unsustainable.
9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that apart from the fact
that, at the time of inspections carried out from time to time, no building
was found to be existing, it has come in report submitted by DIOS in the
year 2021 filed as Annexure No.SCA-1 to the supplementary affidavit
dated 28.10.2021, that in case, for a continuous period of three years, the
institution does not conduct examination of the students, the affiliation
would stand automatically cancelled. It is further submitted that now the
State has come up with new policies where the question of inclusion or
non-inclusion of institutions on grant-in-aid is being taken in accordance
with law as existing today and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner.
10. I have considered the submission made and perused the material
available on record.
11. It is not in dispute that petitioners' institution was already receiving
grant from the State Government. The same was released from time to
time and the institution was also recognized. The reason for
withdrawal/cancellation of recognition was a consequential action in
furtherance of order dated 10.08.2009, whereby, the Government had
granted approval to permanently cancel the grant of the petitioner's
institution.
12. Though, the orders dated 10.08.2009 (wrongly indicated as
10.11.2009 in the order 09.01.2018 passed by this Court), along with the
order dated 14.10.2013, were quashed while allowing Writ-C Nos.20960
of 2015 and 22209 of 2014, when the matter was remitted back to the
respondents for re-consideration, it would be a case where the question of
withdrawal/cancellation of grant and/or recognition would be referable to
that point of time when the action impugned was taken. Apparently, the
WRIC No. 27786 of 2018
4
action adverse to the petitioners was taken on account of infrastructural
deficiencies and on no other ground.
13. Since reference has been made to the Government Order dated
22.5.2014 which was issued in favour of 157 Sanskrit institutions
recognition whereof was earlier withdrawn/cancelled on account of zero
strength of students and the institutions being buildingless, the Court finds
that restoration of grant was made subject to certain conditions, which
read as under:
"4- उप नुसार रा नुदान बहाल ये गये 157 सं त
मा क/महा ल को रा नुदान तश के अधीन होगाः-
(1) ऐसे सं त मा क/महा लय जो पू तरह ब है अथवा जहाँ
छा सं शू है को पहले पु जी त कर संचा त करने का यास या
जाय। उ के स व न होने दशा ऐसे सं त
मा क/महा ल का रत क एवं णे र क चा को ऐसे
ल /महा ल समायो त या जाय जहां छा उपल है पर
कृत प के अनुसार क उपल न है।
(2) ऐसे सं त लय/महा लय जहाँ मानक के अनुसार छा उपल
न है, उ तीन माह का समय इस श के साथ दान कर या जाय वह
तीन माह अपने लय मानकानुसार छा का पंजीकरण अ वा प
सु त कर या जाय।
(3) ऐसे सं त लय/महा लय जहाँ मानक के अनुसार अव पना
सु धा न है, उ तीन माह का समय अव पना स धा पू के ए
या जाता है।"
14. In view of the above, restoration of grant being subject to certain
conditions and nature of the cases of 157 institutions being identical to
petitioner-institution, this Court cannot ignore the conditions set out in the
said Government Order, as quoted hereinabove.
15. As far as the latest policy of the State Government whereunder the
cases of the institutions to include or not to include on grant-in-aid are
under consideration or certain decisions have been taken or might be
taken, the case of the present petitioner stands on different footing, at least
र्यु
क्ता
ज्या
कि
स्कृ
ध्य
मि
वि
द्या
यों
ज्या
नि
म्न
लि
खि
र्तों
स्कृ
ध्य
मि
वि
द्या
री
न्द
की
त्र
ख्या
न्य
र्न
वि
लि
प्र
कि
क्त
स्थि
ति
म्भ
की
में
स्कृ
ध्य
मि
वि
द्या
यों
में
र्य
शि
क्ष
शि
क्ष
त्त
र्म
रि
यों
वि
द्या
यों
वि
द्या
यों
में
जि
कि
त्र
ब्ध
न्तु
स्वी
दों
शि
क्ष
ब्ध
हीं
स्कृ
वि
द्या
वि
द्या
त्र
ब्ध
हीं
न्हें
नि
र्दे
प्र
दि
कि
में
वि
द्या
में
त्रों
नि
र्य
रू
नि
श्चि
लि
स्कृ
वि
द्या
वि
द्या
स्था
वि
हीं
न्हें
स्था
वि
ओं
की
र्ति
लि
दि
WRIC No. 27786 of 2018
5
in relation to point of time qua which the consideration has to be made.
Shri Khare's submission that it is not a case where the petitioner is
claiming for inclusion on grant-in-aid list and/or grant of recognition
rather it is a case where situation both qua recognition as well as grant
relates back to the point of time prior to 10.08.2009, appears to have
substance.
16. Nevertheless, since no direct relief can be granted to the petitioner in
terms of restoration of recognition or grant and necessarily as, over a
period of time when infrastructure position might have also changed and
the petitioner might be ready to comply with the requirements of law for
maintenance/restoration of grant/recognition based upon their factual
strength and status, the same has to be reconsidered at the level of State
Government.
17. In view of the above discussion, the petition is disposed of with
following observations and directions:-.
(i) Matter is remitted back to the respondent no.1 and 2 to take
a decision qua restoration of grant as well as recognition to the
petitioner's institution on merits.
(ii) For the said purpose, the petitioner is permitted to file a
fresh representation before respondent nos.1 and 2 annexing
therewith relevant material and the decision shall be taken
within a period of four months after submission of
representation.
(iii) Orders dated 03.07.2018 and 05.07.2018 respectively
contained in Annexures No. 14 and 13 in the writ petition
having lost their significance in the changed circumstances, the
same shall abide by the fresh order to be passed by the
respondents no. 1 and 2, but in the light of observations made
herein-above.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
March 19, 2026
S.A.
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…