INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS’ ASSOCIATION CHANDIGARH (REGD.) & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 11-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA, J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
773
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS’ ASSOCIATION
CHANDIGARH (REGD.) & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 3877/2022)
MAY 11, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA AND
J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 – s.87 – Power to extend
enactments to Chandigarh – Punjab (Regulation of Fees of Unaided
Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 – 2016 Act extended vide
impugned notification issued by appropriate authority in exercise
of powers u/s.87 – Notification assailed – Writ petition(s) dismissed
by High Court – Challenge before Supreme Court is to Clauses (a)
and (b) of the proviso inserted in terms of the impugned Order/
Notification by way of paragraph 6 thereof; validity of paragraph
8 also questioned – Held: The entire issue needs to be decided
keeping in mind the exposition of Supreme Court in Lachmi Narain
vs. Union of India wherein expression ‘restrictions or modifications’
occurring in s.87 has been interpreted– Accordingly, stipulation
specified in clause (a) cannot be considered as peripheral and
insubstantial change – For, it is a substantive matter because the
Principal Act (2016 Act) extended in terms of the impugned
Government Order/Notification, makes no provision regarding
disclosure of income, expenditure, account and balance sheet on
website of the unaided schools, including as applicable in the State
of Punjab – Hence, change introduced vide the impugned
Government Order/Notification in terms of clause (a) in the third
proviso inserted by way of paragraph 6 thereof is outside the scope
of the authority bestowed on the competent authority in terms of
s.87, 1966 Act – That stipulation, therefore, needs to be struck down
being ultra vires – Further, paragraph 8 of the impugned Government
Order/Notification also needs to be struck down being
unconstitutional and ultra vires – However, stipulation in clause (b)
merely prohibits the unaided institutions from charging any kind of
cost from the parents – This is consistent with the legislative intent
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 773
773
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
and mandate of the 2016 Act, in fact, it restates the inbuilt policy,
essence and substance of the 2016 Act – Thus, it is in no way a
substantial change – Challenge to clause (b) rejected.
Words & Phrases – ‘restrictions or modifications’ occurring
in s.87, 1966 Act – Interpretation of – Discussed – Punjab
Reorganisation Act, 1966 – s.87.
Lachmi Narain v. Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 953 :
[1976] 2 SCR 785 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1976] 2 SCR 785
relied on
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3877
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2021 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 7706 of
2020 (O&M).
With
Civil Appeal No. 3878 of 2022
Avi Singh, Manohar Pratap, Karan Dhalla, Ajit Kumar Ekka, Advs.
for the Appellants.
K. M. Nataraj, Jayant K. Sud, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASGs,
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Ritwiz Rishabh, Harish Pandey, Raghvendra
S. Srivastva, Arvind Kumar Sharma, S. K. Singhania, Bhuvan Mishra,
Varun Chugh, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Kartik Jasra, Randeep Sachdeva,
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adit Khorana, Ms. Deepa Dutta, Ms. Shreya Jain, S.
Rustam Singh Chauhan, Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Ms. Preeti Rani, Gurmeet
Singh Makker, Chandra Prakash, Rajive Bhalla, Sumeir Anuja, Jai Surya
Jain, Yajur Bhalla, Deepak Samota, Ashish Vajpayee, Shubham Bhalla,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated
28.05.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
775
in Civil Writ Petition Nos.7706/2020 (O&M) and 7761/2020(O&M)
respectively.
3. The appellants had assailed the Notification dated 13.04.2018
issued by the appropriate authority in exercise of powers under Section
87 of Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966, (for short, ‘the 1966 Act’), by
way of writ petition(s) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The High Court has dismissed the said writ petition(s) opining
that the appropriate authority was competent to issue such Government
Order/Notification.
5. Before this Court, the limited challenge is to Clauses (a) and
(b) of the proviso, which have been inserted in terms of the impugned
Order/Notification by way of paragraph 6 thereof. Paragraph 6 of the
impugned Order/Notification reads thus:
“6. In section 5, after this proviso shall be insert

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.