Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 139321 (ALL)

C/M, MAKTAB ANWARUL ULOOM, SHRAWASTI THRU. MANAGER MERAJ AHMAD AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. MINORITY WELFARE, LKO. AND OTHERS

WRIC/4464/2025 · 2025-05-14

Jaspreet Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28046 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4464 of 2025 Petitioner :- C/M, Maktab Anwarul Uloom, Shrawasti Thru. Manager Meraj Ahmad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Minority Welfare, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Mansoor,Mohammad Danish Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kumar Ayush Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Prabhat Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 and 5. Shri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.4. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the District Minority Welfare Officer, Shrawasti under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulation, 2016 restraining the Institution from carrying out any educational activity, as contained in Annexure No.04 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, Shrawasti and Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Jamunaha, Shrawasti to open the seal which were put on the premises of the Institution on 27.04.2025." The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners Institution was granted a recognition by means of a letter dated 20.04.1974, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.3. It is urged that the respondent No.5 by means of the order dated 01.05.2025, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.3, has sealed the premises of the petitioners on the premise that the petitioners Institution does not have the necessary recognition from Arabic, Persian Madarsa Board. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that first and foremost no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners so much so that not even a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. Apparently, the said order is violative of principles of natural justice. It is further urged that even otherwise there is no basis of the order inasmuch as the ground upon which it has been issued is apparently not applicable inasmuch as the petitioners was granted the recognition from the respondent No.4 and it was not required to take recognition from the Arabic Peersian Madarsa Board. It is specifically averred by the petitioners that on 27.04.2025, the respondents No.2 and 3 without affording an opportunity of hearing has sealed the premises of the petitioners Institution. It is also urged that the impugned order is patently erroneous and suffers from vice of arbitrariness and has been passed in colourable exercise of powers. Shri Prabhat Srivastava, learned counsel for the State has very fairly stated, on the basis of oral instructions received by him telephonically, that it is a fact that prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 01.05.2025, no opportunity of hearing or show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. That being so, this Court does not deem it appropriate to keep the matter pending or call for counter affidavit inasmuch as it is an admitted position that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners. Considering the aforesaid and noticing that the order has been passed without hearing to the petitioners, accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 is quashed and set aside and since the sealing of the premises of the petitioners Institution shall also be removed forthwith. It is made clear that the impugned order has been set aside primarily on the ground that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioners and the merits of the case of either of the parties has not been adjudicated. However, in case if the respondents choose to initiate any proceedings, they shall be free to do so and follow the procedure as prescribed in law including affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and which will be decided on its own merits. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench