Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010116652018 2025:GAU-AS:2856 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3745/2018 HANIF ALI S/O- LATE ALIMUDDIN, VILL- LENGRIMARI CHAR, P.O- RANGAMATI, P.S- MANGALDAI, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784529 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019 3:THE MISSION DIRECTOR OF SSA ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 19 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DARRANG MANGALDAI DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DARRANG MANGALDAI DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125 Page No.# 2/5 6:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER KALAIGAON EDUCATION BLOCK DIST- DARRANG PIN- 784125 7:THE SUB INSPCETOR OF SCHOOLS SADAR WEST CIRCLE KALAIGAON BLOCK DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125 8:THE HEAD MASTER CUM SECRETARY OF THE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE LENGRIMARI CHAR M V SCHOOL VILL- LENGRIMARI CHAR P.O- RANGAMATI DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 78452 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K ROY, MR. K RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. N ISLAM (R-8),SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 18-03-2025 Heard Mr. K Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7; Mr. P Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3; Mr. P Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 as well as Mr. AK Azad, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8. 2. The petitioner has put to challenge the impugned order dated 31.12.2015 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Darrang (respondent No. 5) Page No.# 3/5 by which the erstwhile No. 2 Dhariakhaity Lengrimari Char Upper Primary School is to be re-shifted with immediate effect to the new site at the north bank of the River Brahmaputra, which has been donated by one Md. Billal Hussain for the newly upgraded M.V. School. 3. The facts of the case is that the petitioner is a resident of the south bank of the River Brahmaputra in which erstwhile No. 2 Dhariakhaity Lengrimari Char Upper Primary School had been located. However, in view of the impugned order dated 31.12.2015, the said school was to be shifted to the north bank of the River Brahmaputra. However, vide another order dated 13.01.2016 issued by the respondent No. 5, the earlier order dated 31.12.2015 was kept in abeyance. 4. Some persons who were living in the north bank of the River Brahmaputra being aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2016 issued by the respondent No. 5 filed WP(C) 1735/2016 before this Court. This Court stayed the operation of the order dated 13.01.2016, vide interim order dated 22.12.2016 passed in WP(C) 1735/2016, on the ground that the order dated 13.01.2016 was contrary to the report of the Sub-Inspector of Schools dated 24.12.2015. WP(C) 1735/2016 was thereafter dismissed as not pressed, vide order dated 06.12.2017 and the interim order dated 22.12.2016 stood vacated. 5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner represents a number of parents of children, who are living in the south bank of the River Brahmaputra, who are against the shifting of the School to the north bank. He submits that in view of the closure of WP(C) 1735/2016, vide order dated 06.12.2017, the order dated 13.01.2016 which had been kept in abeyance stood revived. As such, the Page No.# 4/5 School which has been shifted to the north bank in terms of the impugned order dated 31.12.2015 in the year 2018 during the pendency of WP(C) 1735/2016 cannot be made functional. 6. The counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that due to the stay of the order dated 13.01.2016 in WP(C) 1735/2016, the erstwhile No. 2 Dhariakhaity Lengrimari Char Upper Primary School has been shifted to the north bank of the River Brahmaputra and the same was now known as Lengrimari Char M.E. School. They submit that as the School had already been shifted to the north bank and has been running there since the year 2018, the writ petition has become infructuous. They also submit that there is no averment made by the writ petitioner, to the effect that he is the guardian of a child, who is a student in the School that has been shifted to the north bank of the River Brahmaputra. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. The contents of the writ petition shows that only the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The affidavit filed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition, shows that the writ petitioner, Md. Hanif Ali did not make any averment to the effect that the petitioner had been authorised by any other person to file the present writ petition on their behalf. There is no averment in the writ petition made by the petitioner stating that he is the father of a child who is going to the newly shifted School in the north bank of the River Brahmaputra. There is only the writ petitioner’s name in the Cause Title, as the lone writ petitioner. Page No.# 5/5 9. In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Supreme Court has held that only an aggrieved person can approach a writ Court for enforcement of his fundamental or legal right, which has been violated. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to show this Court, as to what fundamental or legal right of his has been violated by the shifting of the School to the north bank of the River Brahmaputra. 10. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its discretion to interfere with the impugned order dated 31.12.2015, shifting the location of the School from the south bank of the River Brahmaputra to the north bank of the River Brahmaputra. The same is basically an administrative exercise to be carried out by the concerned authorities. In view of the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant