2025:HHC:3657 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2681 of 2025 Decided on: 27.02.2025 Jai Public School Society & another … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Ms. Neelam Kaplus, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Neelam Kaplus, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 4, respectively. 2. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to the act of the respondents, in terms whereof, the petitioner/ School has been denied affiliation with the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners have failed to submit fresh Agreement/Ownership Agreement in terms of requirements of the Regulation. 3. It appears from the record that the School in issue is being run by way of construction thereof, on rented premises. The latest Rent Agreement that has been submitted on behalf of the School have not been executed by the School with all the land owners, but only with one of them. This is also evident form the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:3657 pleadings itself. The contention of the petitioners, as has been argued in this Court is that the petitioners intend to run the School only from the rooms which stand constructed on the property of the persons, with whom the Rent Agreement has been executed. 4. Both learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Board have submitted that as the entire School has been constructed over joint property of the co-owners, in this backdrop, the Rent Agreement executed by the petitioners with one of them, does not fulfills the requirement of the Regulation. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of impugned order dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure P-12), as the petitioners have been given liberty to represent to the Chairman of the respondent/Board under Regulation 16.7.9 of the Affiliation Regulations, the petitioners be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Chairman concerned afresh with further direction to the Chairman to pass appropriate orders on the representation filed by the petitioners. 6. Without making any observation on the merits of the case and in the interest of justice, this petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner-School approaches the Chairman of Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education within a period of three weeks from today and files a representation in terms of Regulation 16.7.9 of the Affiliation Regulations, the same be treated to have been filed within the prescribed period and be 3 2025:HHC:3657 decided by the Chairman concerned on merit within four weeks. However, it is again clarified that this Court has not made any observation as far as the merits of the case are concerned and the Chairman is expected to pass appropriate orders on the representation to be filed by the petitioners strictly as per the provisions of the Regulation which governs the affiliation of such like schools. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge February 27, 2025 (Rishi)