# Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan and another v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 30
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-12-01
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No.1628 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maharishi-shiksha-sansthan-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41308
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act
1995-Section 3,5, 5A-ceasure of bullock
by police during transformation-release
application also rejected by Magistrate
on investigation they were carried out
for slaughter purpose in Bihar Statefrom the version of F.I.R. no offence
made out under the Act-ownership of
these Bullock can be decided by the
Court below-court expressed it great
concern considering the lack of judicial
knowledge of these judicial officer or
under deep devotion towards cow-heldimpugned
order
rejecting
release
application
wholly
illegal-direction
issued for fresh consideration of release
application.

Held: Para 14

## Text

30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
(supra) are not applicable in the present
case.

10. In this view of the matter, the
writ petition is devoid of any merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Special Appeal No.1628 of 2008

Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.R. Sirohi
Sri Rajesh Tiwari

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948Section 10-Establishment-Notification of
central
Government
challenged
by
management-running
CBSE
schoolground taken education institution not
defined in the Act-provisions of ESD Act
not
applicable-held-
wholly
misconceived-word
'otherwise'
used
under this section-vide enough to cover
educational Institution-view taken by
Single Judge needs no interference.

Held: Para 4 & 6

The Hon'ble Single Judge by means of
the impugned judgment and order dated
22nd
October,
2008
held
that
the
contentions so raised on behalf of the
petitioner is misconceived, the word
'otherwise' as used in the said is wide
enough to cover educational institutions.
Reliance has been placed upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Hindu Jea Band, M/s Jaipur vs.
Regional
Director,
Employees'
State
Insurance Corporation, Jaipur reported
in AIR 1987 SC 1166.

We are of the considered opinion that
the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly held
that educational institution would be
covered
under
the
definition
of
establishment specifically in view of the
use of the word 'otherwise'. It has
rightly
been
held
that
the
word
'otherwise' is of wide amplitude covering
all
other
establishments
including
educational institutions.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1987 SC 1166, A.I.R. 1963, AIR 1988 SC
1700

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam
for the appellants and Sri K.R. Sirohi,
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh
Tiwari for the respondents.

2. The appellant No. 1 before this
Court is an unaided institution said to be
recognized by the Central Board of
Secondary Education. The institution had
approached this Court by means of Writ
Petition No.53277 of 2008 challenging
the notification issued in exercise of
powers under Section 1(5) of ESI Act,
1948 dated 30th June, 2008 whereby
educational institutions have been brought
within the purview of the ESI Act, 1948.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants
had contended before the Hon'ble Single
Judge that word 'establishment' has not
been
defined
under
the
ESI
Act.
Education Institutions cannot be treated to
be an establishment within the meaning of
Section 1(15) of the ESI Act, 1948
inasmuch
as
the
words
'other
1 All] Maharishi Shiksha Sansthan and another V. State of U.P. and another
31
establishments' as used in the said section
would necessary take it's colour from the
preceding words industrial, commercial,
agricultural or otherwise, being read as
ejusdem
generic.
The
educational
institutions do not perform any industrial
or commercial activity and therefore it
cannot be included within the purview of
ESI Act, 1948.

4. The Hon'ble Single Judge by
means of the impugned judgment and
order dated 22nd October, 2008 held that
the contentions so raised on behalf of the
petitioner is misconceived, the word
'otherwise' as used in the said is wide
enough to cover educational institutions.
Reliance has been placed upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Hindu Jea Band, M/s Jaipur vs.
Regional Director, Employees' State
Insurance Corporation, Jaipur reported
in AIR 1987 SC 1166.

5. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and have gone through the
record.

6. We are of the considered opinion
that the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly
held that educational institution would be
covered
under
the
definition
of
establishment specifically in view of the
use of the word 'otherwise'. It has rightly
been held that the word 'otherwise' is of
wide
amplitude
covering
all
other
establishments
including
educational
institutions.

7. Reference may also be had to the
following judgments of the Apex Court
wherein a University as well as a School
has been held to be an industry (a) A.I.R.
1963; University of Delhi vs. Ram Nath
and (b) AIR 1988 SC 1700; Miss. A.
Sundarambal vs. Government of Goa,
Daman & Diu and others, on the same
logic education institutions would also
answer the description of establishment as
per Section 1 (5) of the ESI Act.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the
special
appeal
lacks
merit
and
is
dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2005

Kailash Yadav and others ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Praveen Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act
1995-Section 3,5, 5A-ceasure of bullock
by police during transformation-release
application also rejected by Magistrate
on investigation they were carried out
for slaughter purpose in Bihar Statefrom the version of F.I.R. no offence
made out under the Act-ownership of
these Bullock can be decided by the
Court below-court expressed it great
concern considering the lack of judicial
knowledge of these judicial officer or
under deep devotion towards cow-heldimpugned
order
rejecting
release
application
wholly
illegal-direction
issued for fresh consideration of release
application.

Held: Para 14