Amit Shukla v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 24281 of 2017 Decided on : 02.11.2017 Amit Shukla . . . Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL PRESENT: Petitioner in-person.

Mr. Atul Nanda, Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. IPS Doabia, Addl. AG, Punjab.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by way of Public Interest Litigation, seeking quashing of Circulars dated 18.10.2017 (appended as Annexures P-1 & P-2, respectively), issued by respondent No.3, directing all the District Education Officers of Punjab to shut the 800 primary schools and merge the district wise primary schools to the other primary schools which is against the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory education Act, 2009 (in short 'the Act') and also in violation of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.

2.

Upon notice of motion having been issued, learned Advocate General, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the petitioner may file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the Secretary, Department of Education, Punjab, in respect of the grievances raised in the present writ petition, who shall decide the same in accordance with law.

Jawala Ram 2017.11.06 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 24281 of 2017 - 2 - 3.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the the record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petition, we dispose of the present writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the Secretary, Department of Education, Punjab, within a week from today. It is directed that in the event of filing of representation by the petitioner, the Secretary, Education shall pass an order thereon within next two weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say, the said authority shall deal with all the aspects as may be raised by the petitioner in the representation, in accordance with law.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE November 02, 2017 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Jawala Ram 2017.11.06 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh