MARUTI EDUCATION TRUST v. STATE OF GUJARAT

================================================= MARUTI EDUCATION TRUST - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Appellant. Ms.TANUJA KACHCHI, ASST GOVT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 23/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) LPA/92620/2000 JUDGMENT The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed being aggrieved by oral order dated 10th April 2000, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the Special Civil Application and discharge notice. The learned Judge was pleased to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.400/- as costs of the petition to the respondent. The case of the petitioner was that the communication dated 2nd September 1997, whereby the representation/ application dated 14th August 1997 was rejected, was a non speaking order, was required to be quashed and set aside and it was required to be held by this Court that the petitioner-institution is entitled to receive grant. The learned Judge, after taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner and after taking into consideration the two decisions, which were relied upon by the learned advocate, which were found distinguishable as set out in paragraphs 7 and 8, found that the petition has no merit. The learned Judge also observed that, “ .. .. It is not the case where the petitioner-trust is identically situated. Otherwise also, on merits, the petitioner once has accepted this conditional order it has to abide by it. The petitioner when accepted this condition clearly goes to show that it wanted to serve the people of the area without taking any grant. Once it has been decided to serve the people, I fail to see what for this claim has been lodged by it. Those who really want to serve the people and those who are bona fide and genuine persons and want to serve the people never bothers about this grant LPA/92620/2000 JUDGMENT etc.. The very fact that the petitioner is claiming for grant goes to show that its real purpose and object is not of serving the people but for some other object and purpose. It is a case where the representation filed by the petitioner was not accepted and rightly it is not accepted. I do not consider it to be necessary in the present case to decide whether the order impugned in this special civil application is passed in quasi- judicial proceedings or not.” (emphasis supplied)

2. Learned advocate, Ms.Sejal Mandavia for the appellant submitted that this Court (Coram : Akil Kureshi, J.) by judgement and order dated 5th July 2006 in Special Civil Application No.6381 of 1998 and allied matters, has issued certain directions to the State Government. She submitted that if the case of the appellant is also directed to be considered in light of those directions, the appellant will rest contented. The directions issued by this Court are contained in para 18 of the judgement, which are reproduced hereunder for ready perusal: “(i) The Government shall issue a G.R. laying down its policy for considering the cases as special cases for conversion from non-grant-in-aid grant-in-aid institutions. Such a G.R. shall be issued along the line of the affidavit-in reply filed by Shri P.Panneervel on 8th March,

2006. This shall be done within a period of LPA/92620/2000 JUDGMENT four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. i) In all future cases, application of interested institutions shall be considered by the competent authority applying the guidelines so laid down by the Government. ii) While considering such applications, either accepting or rejecting, the authorities shall record and communicate the applicant its brief reasons for the conclusion. iii)The applications of all the petitioners except those wherein the institutions have been closed down will be considered by the Government in light of the policy that may be circulated. Such consideration shall be prospective and on the basis of the Government policy being framed. Such consideration shall be expeditious and the concerned institutions will be communicated the outcome thereof within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv)Till the Government formulates its policy, the interim injunction granted by this Court by the order dated 13.2.2006 not to grant any further applications to any of the institutions shall continue. It is, however, clarified that once the Government policy is formulated as mentioned above, it will be open for the Government to consider LPA/92620/2000 JUDGMENT all cases on the basis of such policy.”

3. The present Letters Patent Appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10th April 2000. As record stands, the order does not warrant any interference. That being so, the Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. Notice of admission is discharged. However, the request of the learned advocate is found reasonable and hence it is directed that in the event the appellant herein approaches the Government with a fresh application/ representation, his case should be considered in light of the directions given by this Court in the above judgement and order dated 5th July 2006 in Special Civil Application No.6381 of 1998. It goes without saying that the Government will consider the case of the appellant/ petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law and if the directions issued by this Court are applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant. (RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) (K.M. THAKER, J.)