HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 27786 of 2018 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Om Prakash Vishwakarma for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel and Shri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is Committee of Management of Shri Gangadeen Dwivedi Sanskrit Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chhibramau, Umarda, Kannauj. The said institution imparts education in Sanskrit at secondary level. It was included in grant-in-aid list of the State Government. The institution was established in the year 1965 and is affiliated with Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi. Later on, U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Act, 2000 came into existence, as a result whereof, institution was affiliated with the said Board. 3. As per the pleadings contained in the petition, petitioners' institution was receiving aid from the State Government. The controversy began in the year 2009 when an order was passed by the State Government on 10.08.2009 on account of the fact that, during the course of inspection, it was found that one Rajesh Kumar, land owner, had given his property comprising of three rooms and one verandah for the purposes of running the institution, however, during the course of verification of the documents, it was found that no clear description of the property was indicated. Consequently, the State Government permanently cancelled the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Om Prakash Vishwakarma, Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Advocate), Shivendu Ojha, Yogesh Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shesh Kumar Srivastava C/M Sri Gangadeen Dwivedi Sanskrit Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U P And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) grant. In furtherance of the order dated 10.08.2009, another order was passed by the Board on 15.10.2013 observing that as per Statute 12.31, the recognition of the institution stands automatically cancelled. 4. The orders dated 10.08.2009 and 15.10.2013 were challenged by the petitioners before this Court by filing Writ-C Nos. 20960 of 2015 and 22209 of 2014. Both the petitions were allowed vide order dated 09.01.2018 and the orders dated 10.08.2009 and 14.10.2013 were quashed. However, this Court, having found violation of principles of natural justice, remitted the matter to the respondents to look into the report and take a decision afresh regarding recognition of the petitioners' institution and also as to whether the petitioner has to be granted financial aid. 5. In furtherance of this Court's order, re-determination was made by the State Government and the order dated 05.07.2018 was passed rejecting the petitioners' representation. It is the said order that has been impugned in the present petition. 6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the proceedings began only on account of infrastructural shortcomings qua institution that no indication of the Arazi number was made in some affidavit brought before the authorities. However, when, in furtherance of the High Court's order, the matter was re-examined, finding was recorded that at the time when inspection was done in May, 2008, the institution did not possess with a building and that the registered deed was executed only in the month of December, 2008. 7. Submission is that once the earlier orders were quashed, the situation would be that the petitioners' status which was existing prior to the first order dated 10.08.2009, would stand restored back to the said point of time and, therefore, even if the representation of the petitioner was rejected without assigning any reason except that the same aspect of the infrastructural infirmity was re-noticed, the petitioners have a case of their restoration of grant. 8. Shri Khare has further referred to a Government Order dated 22.05.2014, annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit WRIC No. 27786 of 2018 2 dated 01.05.2024, and submission has been made that on identical grounds where the strength of the students was found to be zero or the institutions were found as buildingless, grant of 157 Sanskrit institutions was restored subject to certain conditions, however, the respondents having not even followed the said Government Order, order impugned is unsustainable. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that apart from the fact that, at the time of inspections carried out from time to time, no building was found to be existing, it has come in report submitted by DIOS in the year 2021 filed as Annexure No.SCA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 28.10.2021, that in case, for a continuous period of three years, the institution does not conduct examination of the students, the affiliation would stand automatically cancelled. It is further submitted that now the State has come up with new policies where the question of inclusion or non-inclusion of institutions on grant-in-aid is being taken in accordance with law as existing today and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 10. I have considered the submission made and perused the material available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that petitioners' institution was already receiving grant from the State Government. The same was released from time to time and the institution was also recognized. The reason for withdrawal/cancellation of recognition was a consequential action in furtherance of order dated 10.08.2009, whereby, the Government had granted approval to permanently cancel the grant of the petitioner's institution. 12. Though, the orders dated 10.08.2009 (wrongly indicated as 10.11.2009 in the order 09.01.2018 passed by this Court), along with the order dated 14.10.2013, were quashed while allowing Writ-C Nos.20960 of 2015 and 22209 of 2014, when the matter was remitted back to the respondents for re-consideration, it would be a case where the question of withdrawal/cancellation of grant and/or recognition would be referable to that point of time when the action impugned was taken. Apparently, the WRIC No. 27786 of 2018 3 action adverse to the petitioners was taken on account of infrastructural deficiencies and on no other ground. 13. Since reference has been made to the Government Order dated 22.5.2014 which was issued in favour of 157 Sanskrit institutions recognition whereof was earlier withdrawn/cancelled on account of zero strength of students and the institutions being buildingless, the Court finds that restoration of grant was made subject to certain conditions, which read as under: "4- उपयुăǘानुसार राčयानुदान बहाल िकये गये 157 संĥकृ त माĘयिमक/महािवǯालयȋ को राčयानुदान िनĞनिलिखत शतȍ के अधीन होगाः- (1) ऐसे संĥकृ त माĘयिमक/महािवǯालय जो पूरी तरह बęद है अथवा जहाँ की छाśसंćया शूęय है को पहले पुनăजीिवत कर संचािलत करने का Šयास िकया जाय। उǘ िĥथित के सĞभव न होने की दशा मȅ ऐसे संĥकृ त माĘयिमक/महािवǯालयȋ मȅ कायăरत िशWक एवं िशWणेǥर कमăचािरयȋ को ऐसे िवǯालयȋ/महािवǯालयȋ मȅ समायोिजत िकया जाय जहां छाś उपलĜध है परęतु ĥवीकृ त पदȋ के अनुसार िशWक उपलĜध नहȂ है। (2) ऐसे संĥकृ त िवǯालय/महािवǯालय जहाँ मानक के अनुसार छाś उपलĜध नहȂ है, उęहȅ तीन माह का समय इस िनदȆश के साथ Šदान कर िदया जाय िक वह तीन माह मȅ अपने िवǯालय मȅ मानकानुसार छाśȋ का पंजीकरण अिनवायă ɴप सुिनिdzत कर िलया जाय। (3) ऐसे संĥकृ त िवǯालय/महािवǯालय जहाँ मानक के अनुसार अवĥथापना सुिवधा नहȂ है, उęहȅ तीन माह का समय अवĥथापना सिवधाɛ की पूित के िलए िदया जाता है।" 14. In view of the above, restoration of grant being subject to certain conditions and nature of the cases of 157 institutions being identical to petitioner-institution, this Court cannot ignore the conditions set out in the said Government Order, as quoted hereinabove. 15. As far as the latest policy of the State Government whereunder the cases of the institutions to include or not to include on grant-in-aid are under consideration or certain decisions have been taken or might be taken, the case of the present petitioner stands on different footing, at least WRIC No. 27786 of 2018 4 in relation to point of time qua which the consideration has to be made. Shri Khare's submission that it is not a case where the petitioner is claiming for inclusion on grant-in-aid list and/or grant of recognition rather it is a case where situation both qua recognition as well as grant relates back to the point of time prior to 10.08.2009, appears to have substance. 16. Nevertheless, since no direct relief can be granted to the petitioner in terms of restoration of recognition or grant and necessarily as, over a period of time when infrastructure position might have also changed and the petitioner might be ready to comply with the requirements of law for maintenance/restoration of grant/recognition based upon their factual strength and status, the same has to be reconsidered at the level of State Government. 17. In view of the above discussion, the petition is disposed of with following observations and directions:-. (i) Matter is remitted back to the respondent no.1 and 2 to take a decision qua restoration of grant as well as recognition to the petitioner's institution on merits. (ii) For the said purpose, the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh representation before respondent nos.1 and 2 annexing therewith relevant material and the decision shall be taken within a period of four months after submission of representation. (iii) Orders dated 03.07.2018 and 05.07.2018 respectively contained in Annexures No. 14 and 13 in the writ petition having lost their significance in the changed circumstances, the same shall abide by the fresh order to be passed by the respondents no. 1 and 2, but in the light of observations made herein-above. March 19, 2026 S.A. WRIC No. 27786 of 2018 5 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad