Nirmani Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur Vs. Govt. of India & Ors  Insc
800 (14 November 2006)
Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
out of S.L.P (C) No. 23892 of 2005) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad
High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').
facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated l.4.2005 passed by the
Joint Director (Personnel and Administration), Ordnance Equipment Factories, Kanpur,
(in short 'OEF'), the respondent No.4 and the order dated 21.6.2005 passed by
the Director General, Ordnance Factories, Government of India, Kolkatta,
respondent No.6. A further relief was sought for restraining the respondents
from interfering with the running of the O.E.F. Secondary School (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Secondary School') from the premises in question pursuant
to the aforesaid orders and for restraining the respondents from demanding an
amount of Rs.18,307/- towards monthly rent and Rs.21,968/- and premium towards
lease rent and to permit the appellant to run the Secondary School on payment
of rent of Rs.3,904/- per annum. A direction for refund of the amount of Rs.32,95,315/-
to the appellant which had been deposited by it, was also claimed.
appellant (for sake of convenience described as 'Society') had been registered
under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1861 (hereinafter to as
said Society has been established by the officers and employees of the OEF.
Basic object of the Society is to impart education to students in the field of
Art, Science and Commerce by establishing Institutions. The Society has
accordingly established the aforesaid Secondary School, which is recognized by
the Central Board of Secondary Education (in short 'CBSE'). The Secondary
School is running classes from class I to class XII and there are about 1000
students and 35 teachers.
to the appellant, previously a Kendriya Vidyalaya was being run and managed in
the building in which the present Secondary School is being run. Upon shifting
of the Kendriya Vidyalaya to another place, the building along with the
playground was handed over to the OEF. The appellant Society was then
constituted by the Officers and employees of the OEF for the purposes of
establishing the Secondary School and an application was submitted by the
Secretary of the Society to the General Manager of the OEF in the year 2000
seeking permission to run the Secondary School in the building. A certificate
dated 14.6.2000 was issued by the Deputy General Manager of the OEF certifying
that the building, which had been vacated by the Kendriya Vidyalaya, had been
handed over to the Secondary School. A communication dated 2.8.2001 was also
sent by the Works Manager (Administration) of the OEF to the Secretary of the
Society enquiring as to whether the total lease rent of Rs.3,904/- per annum
was acceptable to it. This letter was replied to by the secretary of the
Society pointing out that the annual rent of Rs.3,904/- was acceptable to it.
Director General then sent a communication dated 4.4.2005 to the Chairman of
the Managing Committee of the Secondary School conveying the directives of the
Chairman which are as under:
i) OEF Secondary School
run by OEF Kalyan Samiti shall not run from OEF premises after the academic
session 2005-06 ends All concerned should be intimated about the same
student should be taken in class IX and class X in the academic year 2005-06.
The Managing Committee should deposit Rs.32,95,315/- (Rupees Thirty Two lakhs
Ninety Five thousand Three hundred and fifteen only) lease rent plus premium
within the period of one month without fail.
The Managing Committee shall pay a monthly rent of Rs.18,307.00 till the school
functions from OEF premises i.e. till the academic session 2005-06.
further ordered that a compliance report may be submitted. This order dated
4.4.2005 was challenged by the appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 39846 of
2005 which was disposed of by the High Court by the judgment and order dated
17.5.2005 with the following directions:- "After hearing learned counsel
for the parties we dispose of this petition in terms of the undertaking given
by Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Board that no
action adversely affecting the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 4.4.2005
shall be taken till the mater is decided by the Board. However, we make it
clear that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the
Board, he shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum and the deposit
already made by the petitioner shall be subject to the decision to be taken by
the decision in the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant filed a
representation dated 14.6.2O05 before the Chairman of the OEF. This
representation was rejected by the Board by the order dated 21.6.2005 which was
impugned in the writ petition. In the order it has been observed that according
to the guidelines, the Society was created by well meaning officers and staff
to look after the educational requirement of the wards of the employees and
allied establishment, but the rational behind the creation of the Society had
lost its relevance as only 10% to 11% of the total students of the school are
wards of employees and officers.
the decision was taken to close down the School more particularly when the
Audit Department had also raised objection. In the order it was also pointed
out that the School was running without there being any sanction of the
Competent Authority as per the Land Lease Policy. A further observation was
made that the Board has also given directions several times in the past that
officers of the Organization should not involve themselves in the running of
the Educational Institutions and should instead concentrate on their core activity
for which they had been arrived at on wrong understanding of the relevant
provisions. According to the correct calculation the lease rent shall be Rs.2,19,688/-
per annum and one time premium was also to be charged. The appellant was,
therefore, directed to comply with the directives contained in the
communication dated 4.4.2005. This order dated 21.6.2005 was also impugned in
the writ petition. By the impugned judgment, the writ petition was dismissed.
counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court erroneously proceeded
on the basis that the occupation of the premises in question was unauthorized.
in the same premises, a school was being run by the Kendriya Vidalaya. Society
which is registered has as its members, officers and employees of the OEF. The
school is primary meant for the children of the employees and officers of the
factory. Documents on record go to show that permission as requested was
granted and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.3,904/-. The premium has been
raised to Rs.18,500/- p.m. in addition to the arrears of the amounts of
Rs.32,95,315/- which has been deposited on 5.5.2005. The school which is
running in the premises is affiliated to CBSE.
after the High Court's order, the affiliation was discontinued. But in view of
the order passed by this Court the affiliation has been restored. About 1000
students are prosecuting their studies. It was pointed out that reasonable time
may be granted to the appellant so that the students who are prosecuting in
class IX and XI of the institution can appear at the final examinations. With
reference to policy of the OEF, it is submitted that the appellant is willing
to pay the lease amount and has in fact deposited about Rs.22 lakhs on
response, it is pointed out that though appellant claims that school is meant
for the wards of the employees and the officers, their number is 10 to 11
percent of the total students strength. It is pointed out that the so called
handing over of possession was done by the same person who had applied for the
allotment of the land. Because of the fact that large number of students are
unconnected with the families of the employees and the officers, there is
likelihood of security problems.
reply, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the possession was
handed over to the appellant and it was within the knowledge of all concerned.
Nearly 600 students were earlier prosecuting their studies. They continued in
the appellant's school. Subsequently, there may have been some variation in the
number of students, but that cannot be a ground to refuse continuance of
appellant in the premises.
find that undisputedly, there is no decision of the OEF Board to grant any
lease. But at the same time the school has been running and was affiliated to
are prosecuting their studies. In that sense the students prosecuting their
studies are not students of any non-affiliated institution. At the same time,
it cannot be lost sight of that contrary to the original position the
percentage of wards of employees and officers is less than 15%. Therefore, the
stand that there is valid sanction in favour of the appellant to run the school
in the premises cannot be accepted. It is not disputed by learned counsel for
the respondents that students are prosecuting studies in class IX and XI. It
would not be in the interest of students to direct immediate closure of the
institution and/or to direct the appellant to vacate the premises forthwith.
undertaking be filed by the appellant to vacate the premises latest by
31.3.2008 with the further undertaking to pay the amounts to be charged by the
respondents for occupation of the premises. On such undertaking being filed,
appellant shall be permitted to occupy the premises till 31.3.2008.
appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, disposal of the present appeal
shall not stand on the way of the appellant moving the authorities for grant of
lease of the premises in question. If such request is made the same shall be
considered in its own perspective about which we express no opinion. There will
be no order as to costs.