# Nehru International Public School (Nips) & Anr v. Noida & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 958
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-08
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Sunita Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nehru-international-public-school-nips-anr-v-noida-ors-44091
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

1.Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri H.P. Vashishtha, Shri Praveen Singh, S.C.
2.Shri Shivam Yadav

Held -

Challenge to Cancellation and Sealing Orders
The petitioners challenged two orders issued by NOIDA (dated 24.2.2015 and 18.3.2015) which cancelled a
1990 lease deed and ordered the sealing and resumption of Plot No. U-01, Sector 11. NOIDA alleged that the
7 All. Nehru International Public School (Nips) & Anr. Vs Noida & Ors.
959
land, allotted for an "Institute to organize the youth," was being used for unauthorized purposes and featured
illegal constructions.
Allegations of Procedural Irregularity
The Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth Centre argued that they had indeed filed multiple replies to NOIDA's
show-cause notice (dated 13.1.2015). They contended that NOIDA passed the cancellation order by wrongly
claiming no reply had been filed, thereby failing to consider their defense.
Dispute Over Permissible Land Use
The petitioners claimed that NOIDA was aware of and had implicitly consented to the running of a school on
the premises. They pointed to corrections in the lease deed substituting "Office" with "Institution" and "Youth
Centre." However, NOIDA maintained the land was strictly for an "office complex."
Involvement of Third Parties (AETS and NIPS)
A second writ petition was filed by the Nehru International Public School (NIPS) and the Atari Educational and
Technological Society (AETS). They revealed a "joint venture agreement" with the Youth Centre to run the
school, an arrangement that was notably absent from the Youth Centre's own initial petition.
Criticism of NOIDA's Delay
The Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with NOIDA for failing to file a counter-affidavit for over 15
months. Due to this "uncaring attitude," the Court could not verify factual claims and directed the Secretary of
the department to take action against the responsible officials.
Referral to Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
The Court identified three core factual issues: the legality of running a CBSE school under the lease, the
validity of the third-party agreement with AETS, and the extent of unauthorized construction. It directed the
CEO of NOIDA to resolve these issues within eight weeks.
Protection and Final Directions
The impugned cancellation and sealing orders were kept in abeyance for ten weeks to allow the CEO to
conduct a personal hearing and pass a reasoned speaking order. The Court declined to examine allegations of
"mala fides" against the CEO because he was not impleaded by name.
Preliminary Objections and Disposal
The Court left the question of whether AETS/NIPS had the legal standing to maintain the petition (given their
lack of direct privity with NOIDA) to be decided by the CEO. Both writ petitions were disposed of with
directions to adhere to a strict time schedule.

## Text

958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra), failing which adverse inference
would be drawn and necessary action may be taken against erring officers of Subordinate Courts.

17. The Sessions Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh are also directed to ensure that
aforesaid guidelines which are binding on the courts below are followed in letter and spirit, failing
which adverse inference would be drawn against erring officers and this Court would be compelled
to take appropriate action against them, if any non-compliance is found in this regard.

18. Moreover, there is no rule of law that a judgement of the Apex Court and this Court, if
not strictly complied by the courts below, a petition or an application may be entertained by this
Court and order be passed for getting the same complieSd with.

19. Let a copy of this order be circulated forthwith through Registrar General to all the
Session Judges in State of Uttar Pradesh who shall also circulate the same to all the concerned
Judicial Officers in that Judgeship for necessary compliance.
------------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No.- 16066 Of 2015
&
Writ C No.- 15949 Of 2015

Nehru International Public School (Nips) & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Noida & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
1.Shri Shri Chandan Sharma, Shri Sunil Kumar Bharti
2.Shri P.H. Vashishtha

Counsel for the Respondents:
1.Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri H.P. Vashishtha, Shri Praveen Singh, S.C.
2.Shri Shivam Yadav

Held -

Challenge to Cancellation and Sealing Orders
The petitioners challenged two orders issued by NOIDA (dated 24.2.2015 and 18.3.2015) which cancelled a
1990 lease deed and ordered the sealing and resumption of Plot No. U-01, Sector 11. NOIDA alleged that the
7 All. Nehru International Public School (Nips) & Anr. Vs Noida & Ors.
959
land, allotted for an "Institute to organize the youth," was being used for unauthorized purposes and featured
illegal constructions.
Allegations of Procedural Irregularity
The Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth Centre argued that they had indeed filed multiple replies to NOIDA's
show-cause notice (dated 13.1.2015). They contended that NOIDA passed the cancellation order by wrongly
claiming no reply had been filed, thereby failing to consider their defense.
Dispute Over Permissible Land Use
The petitioners claimed that NOIDA was aware of and had implicitly consented to the running of a school on
the premises. They pointed to corrections in the lease deed substituting "Office" with "Institution" and "Youth
Centre." However, NOIDA maintained the land was strictly for an "office complex."
Involvement of Third Parties (AETS and NIPS)
A second writ petition was filed by the Nehru International Public School (NIPS) and the Atari Educational and
Technological Society (AETS). They revealed a "joint venture agreement" with the Youth Centre to run the
school, an arrangement that was notably absent from the Youth Centre's own initial petition.
Criticism of NOIDA's Delay
The Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with NOIDA for failing to file a counter-affidavit for over 15
months. Due to this "uncaring attitude," the Court could not verify factual claims and directed the Secretary of
the department to take action against the responsible officials.
Referral to Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
The Court identified three core factual issues: the legality of running a CBSE school under the lease, the
validity of the third-party agreement with AETS, and the extent of unauthorized construction. It directed the
CEO of NOIDA to resolve these issues within eight weeks.
Protection and Final Directions
The impugned cancellation and sealing orders were kept in abeyance for ten weeks to allow the CEO to
conduct a personal hearing and pass a reasoned speaking order. The Court declined to examine allegations of
"mala fides" against the CEO because he was not impleaded by name.
Preliminary Objections and Disposal
The Court left the question of whether AETS/NIPS had the legal standing to maintain the petition (given their
lack of direct privity with NOIDA) to be decided by the CEO. Both writ petitions were disposed of with
directions to adhere to a strict time schedule.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
&
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.)

1. These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the two orders of the New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'NOIDA') dated 24.2.2015 and dated
18.3.2015.

2. By means of the first order dated 24th February, 2015, the National Secretary, Jawaharlal
Nehru National Youth Centre, New Delhi and the President of Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth
Centre, NOIDA have been informed that plot no. U-01, Sector 11, NOIDA was allotted in favour
of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth Centre for the purposes of establishing an "Institute to
organize the youth of India". A lease deed for the purpose was executed on 12.2.1990 between the
parties. Under the lease deed, it was contemplated that the demised land would be utilised for the
purposes of "Construction of the Office Complex" (reference Clause XVII of the lease) but in fact
the land was being used for other purposes and that unauthorised constructions were also being
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

raised. A notice dated 13th January, 2015 was issued for stopping the wrongful use of plot as well
as for unauthorised construction being removed. No reply has been filed.

3. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Clauses I (XVII) and II (VIII) of the
lease deed read with Clause I (XVI), a decision has been taken to cancel the lease and to resume
possession of the plot after forfeiting the money deposited by the aforesaid Jawaharlal Nehru
National Youth Centre. For the purposes of demolition of unauthorised construction made over the
premises, the same shall be sealed on 16.3.2015. The recipients of the letter were required to
remove their affects and belongings from the premises.

4. By means of the subsequent letter dated 18th March, 2015, the aforesaid recipients were
informed that the sealing of the premises could not take place on the date fixed i.e. 16th March,
2015. The sealing shall now be affected on 25th March, 2015.

5. In Writ Petition No. 15949 of 2015 (Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth Centre vs. New
Okhla Industrial Authority), it has been contended that reply to the notice dated 13.1.2015 referred
to above was forwarded to the NOIDA authorities followed by letter dated 3.3.2015 for which
receipts were issued on the same date i.e. 3.3.2015. Letters dated 11.3.2015 and 13.3.2015 were
also forwarded in reply to the allegations made. Without considering the reply so submitted by the
petitioner, the impugned order has been made wrongly stating that reply has not been filed. It is
also submitted before us that over the plot construction, where raised by the NOIDA itself and
money was charged from the petitioners for such constructions. It is also stated that the petitioners
were permitted to use the premises for the purposes of running of the school which will including
other activities which are being run from the centre. The crust was taken through the letter of the
NOIDA authorities dated 6.4.1994 page '97' of the writ petition and the minutes of the meeting
dated 29.8.1989 as well as the approval granted by the Central Board of Secondary Education
under the letter dated 23.11.2004 enclosed as page '105' of the paper book.

6. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate suggested before us that the running of the
institution/school alongwith other activities was always in the knowledge of the NOIDA authorities
and, therefore, their consent in the manner of use of such premises was established, although there
may not have been any specific order in writing in that regard.

7. Reference has also been made to the letters and the correction incorporated at internal
page '20' of the lease deed whereby in Clause (viii), words "Office" as recorded earlier has been
deleted and substituted by "Institution" and the expression "for the office purpose" has been
deleted and be replaced as "for the purpose of running youth centre".

8. We may record that the writ petition filed by Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth Centre is
completely silent about any arrangement/agreement with M/s Atari Educational and Technological
Society (AETS) for any of the public school from the centre. The writ petition does not make
mention of any written agreement entered into with the said society for running of the institution in
the name and style of "Nehru International Public School (NIPS)", NOIDA.
7 All. Nehru International Public School (Nips) & Anr. Vs Noida & Ors.
961
9. Writ Petition No. 16066 of 2015 [Nehru International Public School (Nips) And Another
vs. Noida And 2 Ors.] has been filed by Nehru International Public School (NIPS), through ExPresident of the Executive Committee as well as Atari Educational and Technological Society
(AETS) through its Secretary AETS. In this writ petition, Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth Centre
has been impleaded as respondent no. 3.

10. It has been stated that Atari Educational and Technological Society (AETS) is a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The society was registered on 13.11.2001 for
running of the various training institute/centre and for the purpose it shall be affiliated to
appropriate authority so as to give proper certification to the beneficiaries of various training and
educational programme which were being conducted at the NOIDA centre of respondent no. 3 i.e.
Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth Centre in the name and style of the "Nehru International Public
School (NIPS)" namely the petitioner no. 1. It has been then stated that the programme and training
institute were being run at the centre under the banner of NIPS. It is then stated that affiliation with
Central Board of Secondary Education was applied for by Nehru International Public School
(NIPS) on 28th June, 2004 and it was granted on 23.11.2004.

11. In paragraph '14', it is stated that between 2004-2014 petitioner no. 1 and respondent
no. 3 continued to impart quality education to the youth and children.

12. In paragraph '15', it is stated that on 10th May, 2014 a joint venture agreement was
executed between the petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 3 for running of the institution i.e.
petitioner no. 1.

13. Rest of the paragraphs are more or less repetition of the facts qua use of the land being
in conformity with the lease deed. Unauthorised construction having not been raised and that reply
having been submitted to the notice dated 13.1.2015 by Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth Centre
and lastly the reply having not been considered before passing of the order impugned.

14. This Court vide order dated 26.3.2015 required the NOIDA authorities to respond to
the allegations made in the writ petition that on that date, NOIDA was represented by an Advocate.
Writ Petition No. 16066 of 2015 (Nehru International Public School (Nips) And Another vs. Noida
And 2 Ors.) was connected with Writ Petition No. 15949 of 2015 (Jawaharlal Nehru National
Youth Centre vs. New Okhla Industrial Authority) on 1st April, 2015 time was granted to the
counsel for the respondents to file reply to the second petition.

15. Even after more than one year and three months NOIDA has not been able to file
response to the petitions. Such uncaring attitude of NOIDA authorities of not responding in the
matter by filing the counter affidavit for over a year cannot be approved of. Because of non-filing
of counter affidavit the Court is not able to examine the correctness/veracity of the statement of
facts made in the petition specifically those pertaining to submission of reply to the notice dated
13.1.2015 and the same being not considered by the authorities and that a wrong factual recital has
been made in the orders impugned.
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. We direct that the copy of this order, must be placed before the Secretary of the
concerned department who must take action against all those responsible for not responding to the
notice within reasonable time. The practice must stop and the authorities must be asked in no
uncertain terms to file their response in writ petitions within reasonable time.

17. Now turning to the merits of the order that has been challenged before us, we find that
there is a serious dispute qua the particular purpose for which the land was let out under the lease
deed.

18. It is not disputed that under Clause XVII and VIII of the lease deed, the land could be
utilised for the purpose of construction of office complex only with a further condition that if the
land is to be used for any other purpose then the consent of the lessor would be a must.

19. We may also refer to the Clause VII (internal page '19') of the lease deed which
mentions that powers to be exercised by the lessor under the lease shall be exercised by the Chief
Executive Officer or an officer nominated by him.

20. At least on record of both the writ petitions, there is no order in writing of the Chief
Executive Officer permitting the change in the user of the land. What has been referred to us is the
correction in Clause VII (as already noticed above), the authenticity of the said correction has to be
ascertained after reference to the original lease deed.

21. Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners referred to us
Clause VII of deed and stated that it provides, the Chief Executive Officer may authorise any other
person to exercise the powers which were exercisable by him. The contention has been raised
without any pleading in any of the two writ petitions, to the effect that the Chief Executive Officer
had delegated his powers under the lease deed upon any other officer at any point of time.

22. The issue as to whether Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth Centre had submitted its
reply to the notice dated 13.1.2015 and as to whether the use of demised land for running of the
public school affiliated to CBSE is in conformity with the terms and conditions of the lease deed or
not are basically issues of fact.

23. Since no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the NOIDA despite time being
granted as early as in the month of March/April 2015, we for the present accept that reply had been
submitted by the petitioner to notice dated 13.1.2015 and that there has been non-consideration of
the reply by the NOIDA Authority while passing the orders impugned. But the dispute does not end
here inasmuch as some authority must examine.

(a) as to whether the use of the land for running of a public school affiliated to
CBSE is in conformity with the terms and conditions of the lease deed as executed between the
parties or not.
7 All. Nehru International Public School (Nips) & Anr. Vs Noida & Ors.
963
(b) as to whether under the terms of the lease the Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth
Centre could enter into any agreement with a private society for running of the institution in terms
of the lease or not.

(c) as to whether there has been any unauthorized constructions over the premises
in question and if so to what extent.

24. The aforesaid issues must be resolved by the an authority under the U.P Industrial
Development Act, 1976 after affording opportunity to the petitioners.

25. We, therefore, direct that the petitioners must submit there response to the aforesaid
three issues by means of the representation preferably within a period of ten days alongwith
certified copy of this order before the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA.

26. If the petitioners file their representation before the Chief Executive Officer as directed
above within the time provided, the officer shall decide the same within eight weeks of its receipt.

27. We make it clear that the time schedule must be adhered in letter & spirit and no
unnecessary adjournment shall be granted.

28. All consequential action shall be taken accordingly.

29. For a period of ten weeks from today, the orders impugned shall remain in abeyance
and shall abide by the order of the officer concerned as indicated above.

30. In case representation is not filed within time permitted, the petitioners shall not be
entitled to the benefits of this protection.

31. The Chief Executive Officer NOIDA as aforesaid shall decide the issues after
summoning the original records from the NOIDA by means of a reasoned speaking order after
affording opportunity of personally hearing to both the parties to the joint venture agreement.

32. Supplementary Affidavit has been filed today making allegations against Chief
Executive Officer NOIDA. These allegations of mala fide need not be gone into by us as the Chief
Executive Officer has not impleaded by name as one of the respondents to any of these petitions.

33. The Apex Court has held that allegations of mala fide need not be examined in absence
of person against whom allegations are made being impleaded as party.

34. We, however, in the interest of justice provide that if the petitioners so desire, they may
approach the State Government under Section 41(3) of the U.P Urban Planning and Development
Act which stands incorporated by adoption under Section 12 of U.P. Industrial Development Act,
1976.
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

35. Sri Shivam Yadav learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection
with reference to the right of the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 16066 of 2015 to maintain the
present writ petition. As according to him, they had entered into a mutual agreement with the lease
holder without the consent of NOIDA.

36. We need not enter into the said issue and leave the same to be examined by the Chief
Executive Officer as directed above.

37. With the above observations and directions the writ petitions are disposed of. Interim
orders are discharged.
------------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

Writ A No.- 43400 Of 2002

Ajay Prakash Dwivedi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsels for the Petitioners:
Shri Vikash Budhwar, Shri S.C. Budhwar

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.S.C., Shri D.B. Kauser, Shri G.K. Singh, Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, Ms Rollie Kauser, Shri V.K. Singh, Shri
Vivek Misra

Held -

1. Appearances: The court heard counsel for the petitioners and respondent-4; other respondents remained
unrepresented.

2. Background of Petitioner-1: Petitioner-1 was appointed as a Technical Assistant (T-II-3) by the Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) on December 2, 1989, following an advertisement dated July 27,
1989.

3. Background of Petitioner-2 and Respondent-4: ICAR advertised more posts in March 1991. Petitioner-2 and
respondent-4 both applied; Petitioner-2 was declared successful on September 4, 1991.

4. Initial Challenge: Respondent-4 initially filed an Original Application (OA) in 1991 before the Tribunal,
challenging only the appointment of Petitioner-2.