HC passes strictures against education minister

The bench, in its October 3, order, copies of which were made available on Thursday, observed, “This has happened mainly because of the letter written by the local MLA Advocate Dilip Sopal to the minister, who in turn not only acted with utmost despatch, but even went to the extent of directing his office to cancel the order withdrawing the permission granted in favour of respondent 5 (Jagdamba) which order was confirmed not only by this court but also the apex court. In other words, the minister directed his office to overlook the orders passed by the high court as well as apex court.”

The petition was filed by Shivshakti Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha challenging the permission given to Jai Jagdamba Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha to run a school at Kalegaon. Shivshakti, which runs a school in Jamgaon village, took over the management of a school in Kalegaon which was in the red. Shivshakti sought permission to open a secondary school in Kalegaon. Since there was no response, Shivshakti moved the Bombay High Court, which on September 21, 1999, ordered that its proposal be expeditiously considered.

In a parallel development, Jagdamba’s application to start a new school in Javalgaon was rejected. This decision was challenged unsuccessfully in the HC and Supreme Court. But the education authorities at More’s behest preferred Jagdamba to start a school in Kalegaon over Shivshakti even though the former had not submitted a proposal. The state explained that since Jagdamba is already running a school at Javalgaon and they merely permitted them to transfer the school to Kalegaon.

The bench doubting the procedure called for the records and found them revealing. They came across correspondence between the authorities and More and said an attempt was made to cover up some notings relevant to the case. The Education Department secretary had even noted down his objection. Despite this, More directed his office to permit Jagdamba by withdrawing the order of cancellation of permission to them.

It observed, “Besides this, the minister, who is obliged by virtue of his oath of office to uphold the laws and do right to all manner of people without any favour or affection, has obviously observed the said oath in breach. The concerned minister, has directed his office to act against the law, obviously being influenced by the recommendation made by the local MLA. This, of course, cannot be countenanced when we talk of a civilised or a society governed by the rule of law.”

It further remarked,“We express our fond hope that the present case be the only case which has been decided on extraneous considerations rather than applying the rule of law. But if there are several such instances, then it is high time that the persons in authority do some introspection on these matters and resolve to act justly.” The bench has ordered permission be granted to Shivshakti. Advocates Sanjiv Sawant appeared for Shivshakti, Vineet Naik for Jagdamba and government pleader R D Rane for State.