District Inspector Of Schools Can Seek Details Of Land Acquisition Compensation Received By Educational Institution: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court observed that a District Inspector Of Schools, under Uttar Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974, has jurisdiction to seek information regarding land acquisition compensation received by educational institutions.

The Court was deciding a writ petition filed against the notice of the District Inspector of Schools, Hapur that called upon the Management of C/M Lala Babu Baijal Memorial Inter College to produce evidence in relation to seven points.

A Single Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed, “compensation received by the petitioner institution out of land acquisition proceedings is certainly covered into “RIGHTS AND INTERESTS ARISING OUT OF SUCH PROPERTY” and, hence, the amount of compensation is certainly included in the definition of 'PROPERTY' which is referable and relatable to the description of “ASSETS” contained in the Table"

The Bench said that the competence of an officer issuing a notice must be seen as per statutory provisions as well as under the sub-ordinate legislation contained in a Government Order, etc. and it cannot depend solely upon a stand taken in an affidavit, as an administrative power cannot be treated as vested or divested or conferred merely by an admission made by an Officer in an affidavit or otherwise.

Advocate Gautam Baghel appeared for the petitioners while Additional Chief Standing Counsel Jitendra Singh and Advocate Ritesh Upadhyay appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the submission of the counsel for the College was that a notification dealt with the delegation made under Section 2(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974 and he submitted that all the powers under the Act were not delegated upon anyone but delegation of power upon the Regional Deputy Director of Education was restricted only to power under Section 4(4) and 5(1) of the Act, 1974 and insofar as the District Inspector of Schools is concerned, the delegation was only to the extent of obtaining instructions from all Institutions in the district in relation to "DETAILS OF ASSETS".

It was, therefore, contended that, even if, the District Inspector of Schools proceeds to call upon any Institution to furnish information, such information cannot go beyond those aspects which are enumerated in the table, whereas, in this case, by the impugned notice, the petitioner-Institution was called upon to furnish details with respect to the entire immovable properties as well as amount of compensation received by the Institution arising out of land acquisition proceedings, its utilization as well as deposit in the concerned bank accounts etc.

The High Court after considering the submissions made by the parties noted, “The impugned notice seeks information with respect to the entire immovable properties of the Institution as per Point No.1 and remaining point Nos. 2 to 7 are in relation to the compensation received by the Institution arising out of land acquisition operations and its deposit as well as utilization etc. and, in the considered opinion of the Court, compensation received by the petitioner institution out of land acquisition proceedings is certainly covered into “RIGHTS AND INTERESTS ARISING OUT OF SUCH PROPERTY” and, hence, the amount of compensation is certainly included in the definition of 'PROPERTY' which is referable and relatable to the description of “ASSETS” contained in the Table, if not under Clause 1 to 5 of Format 'क', then definitely under "Special Details" ( निव े न िववरण ) and income and also in Format ( ख ) . In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the information sought by the District Inspector of Schools goes beyond the aforesaid Table.”

The Court said that the Government Order is quite comprehensive in nature and various clauses and sub-clauses of the said order are in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the purposes which it seeks to achieve. It further said that merely because the District Inspector of Schools forms part and parcel of a six-member Committee as per Clause 3(8) of the said Government Order, as of now, there is no adjudication made by the said Committee which includes even the Manager and Principal of the Institution.

“The present writ petition has been filed at the stage where only a notice asking certain information has been issued by the District Inspector of Schools. Even otherwise, the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as the aforesaid Act, 1974 prescribe a well structured procedure to be followed by the Director of Education in case violation of provisions of the Act is found to be committed by the concerned Management. No such proceedings have been initiated as of now and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the Authority who is not empowered under the Act, 1974 is proceeding to take substantive action against the Management”, observed the Court.

The Court also said that the power of Director of Education under Section 4(4) of the Act, 1974 is to pass an order on representation filed by the Management against the order under Sub Section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, 1974 or upon application for sanction being made to him under Sub-Section (3) and upon consideration of such matters and "information" as he may consider necessary.

“Therefore, this Court is of the view that no action under Section 4 has yet commenced and the information asked by the District Inspector of Schools is well within his competence”, it added.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title- C/M Lala Babu Baijal Memorial Inter College and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:232782)

Click here to read/download the Judgment