STATE OF MAHAKASHTRA & ANR. versus LOK SHIKSHAN SANSATHA & ORS.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 879 · Decided: 26-07-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI, G.K. MITTER, C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, I.D. DUA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

879 
STATE OF MAHAKASHTRA & ANR. 
v. 
LOK SHIKSHAN SANSATHA & ORS. 
July 26. 1971 
[S. M. Surn, C. J., G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, 
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Education-Grant-in-aid System, r. 3(1) and (2)-lf vague or ambigu-
.ous-Executive instructions. Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 14, 226 and 
.. 358-Jurisdiction of High Court in relation to policy of giving grants to 
educational institutions. 
Grant-in-aid Code if violative of Art. 14. Period of Emergency-Arti-
tle 358 if protects Executive instructions from attack under Art. 19. 
The grant-in-aid system was introduced in 1859 and its main object 
was to permit voluntary effort and reliance on local resources in the field 
of· education apart from such contributions as may be available from the 
funds of the State. After the re-organisation of the State of Bombay a 
unified code of grant-in-aid to non-government secondary schools through-
out the State was introduced by the State from the yeas 1963-64. Under 
r. 2(1) an application for permission to start a secondary sch~ has to 
be made in the prescribed form and such application has Y> reach the 
presl!dbed authorities by the end of October in the year preceding the year 
in which the school was proposed to be started. Under r. 
2) the manage~ 
ment which was permitted to open a school has so ap y for recognit!on 
of the school and under r. 3, a school seeking rec nition shall satisfy 
the Department that the school was actually nee 
in the locality that it 
did not involve any unhealthy competition with any existing institution and 
that the management was competent, reliable and was in the hands of a 
properly constituted authority or committee. 
Under r. 3(3) one of the 
conditions which bas to be satisfied is regarding the financial stability of 
the proposed school. Other conditions which had to be satisfied by a pro· 
posed school are enumerated in the remaining 13, clallses of the rule. Rule 
86(2) provides that schools which are not registered under the Societies 
Registration Act, would not be eligible for grant. 
On October 'ti, 1965, the State issued a press-note calling attention of 
all the managements intending to start new secondary schools to the relevant 
provisions of the Code. It was also stated that applications received for 
starting new schools would be scrutinised and considered by the District 
Committee comprising of the Chairman of the Education Committee, Zila 
Parishad, Parishad Education Officer and a member of the S:condary 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Schodl Certificate Examination Board, Poona, or Vidarbha Board of 
G 
Secondary 
Education, 
Nagpur, that 
is, by 
persons 
who 
were 
familiar 
with 
the 
conditions 
prevailing 
in 
the 
particular 
areas, and the requirements in the area for a new· or additional 
school, and that permission to start a new school would be communicated 
to the applicants concerned by the Deputy Director of Education of the 
region by the end of February. The applicants were also informed that 
the appeals to the Government against the orders of the Depu}:y Director 
of Education could be filed up to end of March, 1966. On the same date, 
B 
Government sent communications- for taking steps for constituting the 
District Committees. The State also sent a circulas on the same date 
to the various educational authorities stating that the Disrict Committees 
• 
8~0 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19il] SUPP. s.c.R. 
should bear in mind, whea considering the applic~tions, the various.matters· 
enumerated in items 1 to 14 which relatc:d to the requirement of a school 
or an additional school in a particular are:a, its financial stability, the nature 
and competency of the management and several allied matters. It was· 
obligatory on the District Committee to record its reasons in writing for 
recommending or not recommending a particular application, which would 
be considered by the Deputy Director of Education of the concerned re-
gion before granting or refusing permission 
to start a new school. 
The applications of the three applk:ants-societies were scrutinised b~ 
the concerned District Committees along with the applications and objec· 
tions of rival applicants. In the case of the first applicant-society the Dis-
trict Committee recommended the rival applicant on the grounds that 
the applicant society had no funds but that the rival applicant was of 
good financial position and experience. 'fhe Deputy Director of E

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