17.07.2026 Item No.18 Court No.01 KCP WPA(P) 171 of 2026 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2026 Samir Dutta - Versus - The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Bhaskar Roy …. For the petitioner Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Ld. A.A.G. Mr. Arhat Biswas Ms. Shetparna Ray …. For the State respondents Mr. Saikat Chatterjee Mr. Isteyak Ahmed …. For the respondent no.4 Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. The present writ petition in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (for short, PIL) has been preferred primarily seeking a direction upon the concerned respondent authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of Section 18(5) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, the 2009 Act) against the private respondent no. 9 who is allegedly running a private unaided school in violation of Section 18(1) of the 2009 Act. Drawing our attention to various documents, Mr. Roy, learned advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the private respondent no. 4 is running a private unaided school without obtaining a certificate of recognition from the competent authority, being the respondent no. 3. Record reveals that, by an earlier order dated 10th April, 2026, the private respondent was afforded an opportunity to 2 put forth his defence by filing an affidavit clarifying certain issues, namely, ‘as to why (i) he has not stopped the school from running despite finding that it has no recognition from the competent authority; and (ii) why he has not taken any action in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 18 of the 2009 Act’. Today, in the course of hearing, Mr. Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents, produces certain documents and submits that action under Section 18(5) of the 2009 Act has been taken against the school authorities, which is reflected in the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 24th April, 2026. He further submits that a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 10 thousand for each day has been imposed upon the private respondents for the period from the date of establishment of the school till that date. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 4, submits that the school has stopped functioning with effect from 24th April, 2026 and that an application in the prescribed form under Rule 10 has been made online before the competent authority, being the respondent no. 3, and the said application is under consideration. As the school has already stopped functioning and as the District Inspector of Schools is in seisin of the issue of grant of recognition to the concerned school, we are not inclined to pass any order on this issue at this stage. It is expected that the District Inspector of Schools shall dispose of such application submitted by the respondent no. 4 as expeditiously as possible. 3 The respondent no. 4 is directed not to run the school without obtaining a certificate of recognition from the competent authority. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition and its connected application are disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)