Ajay Sinha v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1752 of 2020

1. Ajay Sinha S/o Shri Prem Prasad Sinha Aged About 38 Years President/principal Of Mahamaya Vidya Mandir Manjhalipara Sargaon Police And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector Surguja District Surguja Chhattisgarh

3. District Education Officer Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

4. Block Education Officer Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. For Petitioner :

Mr. A. N. Pandey, Adv.

For State :

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Dy. A.G.

s For .

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 31/08/2020

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the District Education Officer Ambikapur dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure P/1). Vide the said order, the District Education Officer has not granted the affiliation to the school for the academic session 2019-2020 which is run in the name of Mahamaya Vidya Mandir Manjhalipara Sargaon, Ambikapur.

2. Plain reading of the impugned order Annexure P/1 would reflect that the said order was passed in the light of the direction given by this Court in WPC No. 294/2020, which was disposed of on 23.01.2020. The impugned order also reveals that some inspection was conducted by the authorities, which according to the petitioner was done during the lock-down period and therefore he could not apprise the authorities sufficiently in respect of the documents and other infrastructure available.

3. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the authorities have found various deficiencies/ irregularities in the course of the petitioner managing the school.

4. At this juncture, Counsel for the petitioner submits that all the deficiencies which have been reflected in the impugned order had already been cured but the authorities have not properly appreciated these facts and the petitioner further submits that even the infrastructure and the building condition also has improved substantially.

5. Given the said submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that let the petitioner again approach the concerned District Education Officer and submit all his explanation, contentions and submissions with sufficient cogent proof of having met with the deficiencies that are reflected in the impugned order. If required, the District Education Officer can also re-visit the establishment and verify whether the deficiencies in fact have been met with or not and thereafter pass an appropriate order. In case, if the District Education Officer on inspection finds that the deficiencies still persist and have not been attended to by the petitioner, the District Education Officer shall still have the power to re-affirm the order dated 25.02.2020.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyotijha