HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8695 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, whose instructions are taken on record. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.08.2025, passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki, whereby this order, based on the communication dated 12.08.2025 from the Secretary, U.P. Basic Siksha Parishad, Prayagraj. The order has been passed setting aside the recognition granted to the petitioner's institution under the powers conferred by Rule 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's institution was granted provisional recognition for Class 1 to 5 for a period of three years on 20.05.2017 and was also granted provisional recognition for Class 6 to 8 on 28.02.2018. It is stated that a complaint was made alleging that the petitioner's school was running classes from 9 to 12 without having the recognition. Unfortunately, on 23.08.2024, an incident took place in which a balcony of the school collapsed, causing minor injuries to some students, which led to lodging a FIR on the same date. On the same date, the District Basic Education Officer (BSA) also issued a show-cause notice to the school, alleging that classes were being run illegally from 9 to 12 without any recognition. On the same date, the District Magistrate, Barabanki, constituted a three-member committee to submit a report regarding the structure of the school. It also appears from the record that a Division Bench of this Court had taken up the issue regarding the safety of school children in PIL No. 3436 of 2020, in which it was recorded in an Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raj Priya Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. C/M Avadh Academy Thru. Manager Awadhesh Kumar Verma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) order dated 19.08.2025 that a portion of the school roof had collapsed and that a committee was constituted by the District Magistrate for the inspection of the institution. 4. It was also stated that the Court hoped the Management of the institution would make amends, comply with the recommendations of the Committee, and adhere to safety norms. Once all conditions were fulfilled, the Court itself observed that it did not see any reason why the school could not be reopened. Subsequently, on 13.09.2024, a report was submitted to the District Magistrate based on a letter dated 23.08.2024, which stated that the school was not adhering to the National Building Code (NBC) guidelines of 2005. It was also stated that the management was running classes from 9 to 12 without any recognition. 5. On the basis of the said report, directions were once again passed by the PIL on 01.10.2024, while an order dated 05.09.2024 was also passed based upon the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No.483 of 2004, (2009) 6 SCC 398. It also appears from the record that this Court had taken notice of an affidavit filed before the court with regard to an audit that was conducted. This Court had also called for an affidavit from the District Magistrate, Barabanki, vide an order dated 07.08.2025, and the affidavit was submitted to this Court along with a report. Subsequently, a report certifying that an inspection was carried out on 14.08.2025 was also submitted. The said report is also on record in the writ petition, where it was stated that the constructions carried out had been found to be prima facie satisfactory. 6. It was also stated that the boundary wall was being constructed, and an observation was made regarding high tension wires. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the impugned order, none of the authorities took into consideration the report dated 14.08.2025. The order was passed based on earlier allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the impugned order does not refer to the report dated 14.08.2025, which was conducted by a three-member committee. 7. As this Court has already observed that even the Division Bench in the PIL has observed that the building is rectified, this Court has no reason why the school cannot be reopened. The present petition is disposed of by directing the District Basic Education Officer to revisit the issue regarding the structure of the petitioner's institution. While doing so, he shall take into consideration the report dated 14.08.2025 and, if necessary, may carry out a fresh inspection. The new order shall also consider the observations made by WRIC No. 8695 of 2025 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Mehrotra (Supra) and the directions of the Division Bench, especially as the photographs of the building in question appear to be prima facie satisfactory. The fresh decision shall be taken on the petitioner's representation after observing the guidelines as given above within a period of four weeks from today. It is also needless to say that the petitioner shall be heard, and any clarifications required shall be called from the petitioner before a decision is made. 8. It is needless to say that the impugned order will loose its relevance after the new order, as directed above, is passed. September 17, 2025 Haseen U. WRIC No. 8695 of 2025 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench