# P.T.A.A.G.Inter College, Alld. and another v. The State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 27
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-02-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.49748 of 2006
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/p-t-a-a-g-inter-college-alld-and-another-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-40910
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter-VII
Regulation-11-read
with
Constitution
of
India
Art.
15
(3)-
Admission of girl student in boy's schoolheld-not proper-restrictions provided in
Regulation 11 applicable only in girls
school where no boys student can be
admitted-D.I.O.S.
misinterpreted
the
provision-impugned
order
can
not
sustained.

Held: Para 6 & 7

At this stage it may be clarified that so
far
as
the
institution
where
only
admission to female students is to be
granted, no boy students may be allowed
to be admitted inasmuch as Article 15
(3) permits the State Government to
make special provisions for women and
children.
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
In such circumstances, Clause11 (t) has
to be read down so as to protect is from
being struck down as hit by Article 15 of
the Constitution of India. It is, therefore,
provided that restriction under Clause 11
(t) will apply only in respect of Boys'
students
being
admitted
in
girls
institution. This Court may also record
that the District Inspector of Schools
while refusing to register the girls
students in the petitioner's institution,
has not appreciated the proviso to
Clause-11
(t),
which
permits
the
admission of girls institution in boys
institution in special circumstances and
no finding in that regard has been
recorded.

## Text

1 All] P.T.A.A.G.Inter College, Alld. and another V. The State of U.P. and others
27
(II) He may take cognizance under
Section 190(1)(b) and issue process
straight away to the accused without
being bound by the conclusions of
the investigating agency, where he is
satisfied
that
upon
the
facts
discovered or unearthed by the
police, there is sufficient ground to
proceed;
(III) he may order further investigation, if
he is satisfied that the investigation
was made in a perfunctory manner;
or
(IV) he may, without issuing process or
dropping the proceedings decide to
take
cognizance
under
Section
190(1)(a)
upon
the
original
complaint or protest petition treating
the same as complaint and proceed to
act under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C.
and
thereafter
decide
whether
complaint
should
be
dismissed or process should be
issued."

5. In the circumstances, on the basis
of the various verdict of this Court which
has been given following the principle
laid down by the Apex Court, I am not in
agreement with the submission made by
the counsel for the petitioner that the
Magistrate had no other option but to
have taken cognizance under Section 190
(1)(b) Cr.P.C. after perusing the case
diary. A bare perusal of the impugned
order which was confirmed in revision,
shows that the Magistrate has opted to
take cognizance under Section 190 (1)(a)
Cr.P.C. and has fixed the date for
recording statement under Sections 200
and 202 Cr.P.C. before summoning the
accused. The impugned orders does not
suffer any legal infirmity whatsoever. No
good ground for interference is made out.
The writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.02.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.49748 of 2006
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26323 of 2005

Parents Teachers Association Adarsh
Gramya Inter College Chakshya Kiraon,
Phoolpur, Allahabad and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha
Sri Satyanshu Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.S. Kushwaha
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter-VII
Regulation-11-read
with
Constitution
of
India
Art.
15
(3)-
Admission of girl student in boy's schoolheld-not proper-restrictions provided in
Regulation 11 applicable only in girls
school where no boys student can be
admitted-D.I.O.S.
misinterpreted
the
provision-impugned
order
can
not
sustained.

Held: Para 6 & 7

At this stage it may be clarified that so
far
as
the
institution
where
only
admission to female students is to be
granted, no boy students may be allowed
to be admitted inasmuch as Article 15
(3) permits the State Government to
make special provisions for women and
children.
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
In such circumstances, Clause11 (t) has
to be read down so as to protect is from
being struck down as hit by Article 15 of
the Constitution of India. It is, therefore,
provided that restriction under Clause 11
(t) will apply only in respect of Boys'
students
being
admitted
in
girls
institution. This Court may also record
that the District Inspector of Schools
while refusing to register the girls
students in the petitioner's institution,
has not appreciated the proviso to
Clause-11
(t),
which
permits
the
admission of girls institution in boys
institution in special circumstances and
no finding in that regard has been
recorded.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard leaned counsel for the
parties.

The admission of girls students in the
Boy's institutions, which are situate in
rural areas through out the State of Uttar
Pradesh, has been prohibited by the Staterespondents with reference to Regulation11 (t) of Chapter-VII of the Regulations
framed under the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921. The relevant clause
reads as follows:

"11(t) Parishad dwara sanstha ko jin
abhyarthiyon ke pathan, paathan ke liye
manyata pradan ki gayee hai, sanstha
meyn ushi prakar ke abhyarthiyon ka
pravesh/adhyapan karaya jayega arthat
balak ke roop meyn manyata prapt
vidyalayon meyn balak tatha balika ke
roop meyn manyata prapt vidyalaya meyn
balika abhayarthi hi adhyan ke patra
hongey."

2. The restriction so imposed is
being challenged on two grounds:

(a) Any provision, which prohibits
the girls students being admitted in boys
institution is hit by Article 15 of the
Constitution of India. Article 15 (3)
prohibits the State from discriminating on
the ground of sex, therefore, there cannot
be any restrictions upon the admission of
girls students in boys institution.

(b) Even otherwise, Clause-11 (t)
provides that girls students can be
admitted in boys' institutions situate in
rural areas where there are no girls
institutions in the local area. It has further
been provided that if in the girls
institution situate in local area and if the
subjects in which the girl students seeks
admission is not being taught, she can be
admitted in a boys institution situate in
the local area situate nearby. It is
therefore, submitted that there is no
absolute prohibition in admission of girls
students in institution established for boys
students.

Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand with reference to Clause-11 (t)
supports the ban imposed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and have gone through the
records of the present writ petition.

Article 15 of the Constitution of
India reads as follows:

"15. Prohibition of discrimination
on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex
or place of birth-(1) The State shall not
discriminate against any citizen on
grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of
birth or any of them, be subject to any
disability,
liability,
restriction
or
condition with regard to-
1 All] P.T.A.A.G.Inter College, Alld. and another V. The State of U.P. and others
29

(a) access
to
shops,
public
restaurants, hotels and places of public
entertainment; or

(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing
ghats, roads and places of public resort
maintained wholly or party out of State
funds or dedicated to the use of the
general public.

(3) Nothing in this article shall
prevent the State from making any special
provision for women and children.

[(4) Nothing in this article or in
clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the
State from making any special provision
for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens
or for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes.]"

4. Thus, Article 15 prohibits
discrimination on the ground of sex,
however, Article 15 (3) permits the State
Government
to
make/frame
special
provisions in favour of female.

5. In view of the aforesaid, thee can
be no discrimination against the female
candidate only on the ground of sex,
including the admissions in institutions.

6. At this stage it may be clarified
that so far as the institution where only
admission to female students is to be
granted, no boy students may be allowed
to be admitted inasmuch as Article 15 (3)
permits the State Government to make
special
provisions
for
women
and
children.

7. In such circumstances, Clause011
(t) has to be read down so as to protect is
from being struck down as hit by Article
15 of the Constitution of India. It is,
therefore, provided that restriction under
Clause 11 (t) will apply only in respect of
Boys' students being admitted in girls
institution. This Court may also record
that the District Inspector of Schools
while refusing to register the girls
students in the petitioner's institution, has
not appreciated the proviso to Clause-11
(t), which permits the admission of girls
institution in boys institution in special
circumstances and no finding in that
regard has been recorded.

8. On behalf of the petitioner it has
been stated that the condition mentioned
in Clause-11 (t) stands satisfied in their
favour, to which no reply could be
submitted. The order passed by the
District Inspector of Schools refusing to
issue registration forms in favour of
petitioners' institution is hereby quashed.

9. Let the District Inspector of
Schools take necessary steps, preferably
within one month for ensuring that the
students of petitioners' institution are
registered in accordance with Regulation3 of Chapter-XII of the regulations
framed under the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act.

10. It is further provided that the late
fee which the petitioners' institution has
been required to deposit must also be
refunded to the institutions within one
month.

The present writ petition is allowed
subject to the observations made herein
above.

Petition allowed.
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.10.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

First Appeal No. 281 of 1992

U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad

 ...Opposite Party/Appellant
Versus
Smt. Pushpa Devi & others ...Respondents

Connected with
1.First Appeal No. 280 of 1992
2.First Appeal No. 282 of 1992
3.First Appeal No. 298 of 1992

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri P.K. Singhal
Sri Shree Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.S. Kushwaha
Smt. Sunita Agrawal
Sri V.K. Sharma

Land Acquisition Act-Section 18-Right to
sue mean right to hold / possess the
property-Transfer
of
land
already
acquired-but before the award-whether
such
transfree
has
right
to
press
reference
for
enhancement
of
compensation-held-'yes'
as
per
provisions
of
Art.
300-A
of
the
constitution-right
to
property
is
constitutional right-Transfree shall stand
in the shoes of transferer with right to
claim for enhancement of compensation.

Held: Para 17 & 18

From the above discussion it is clear that
right to receive compensation is not a
mere right to sue but is an actionable
claim which can be transferred, as held
by the Supreme Court in the case of
Khorshed Shapoor (supra).

Besides above right to property has been
recognized as a constitutional right by
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India
inserted
by
the
Constitution
(44th
Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20th of
June, 1979 wherein it has been provided
for that no person shall be deprived of
his property saved by the authority of
law. This article also supports the view,
as
canvassed
by
the
claimant
respondents who are transferee from the
original land owner. Such transferee
shall stand in the shoes of the transferer
to receive compensation with a right to
file
a
reference
application
for
enhancement of the compensation if the
compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer is not as per correct
market value prevalent on the date of
the relevant notifications.
Case law discussed:
2004 (3) AWC-2195
AIR 1980 SC-775
1999 ALJ-153
(1905) 1 K.B.-260
AIR 1932 Cal.-719
1999 ALJ-153
AIR 1980 SC-775
1962 (1) SCR-676
AIR 1989 SC-1652
AIR 1958 SC-328
AIR 1992 SC-1604

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.)

1. The above four first appeals were
heard together and are being disposed of
by a common judgment. The learned
counsel for the parties jointly agreed that
a common question of law is involved in
these appeals and they can be disposed of
on the said common question. In order to
appreciate the controversy involved in
these four cases the facts of first appeal
no.281 of 1992 are being taken into
account as the arguments were advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties in
this appeal only and they submitted that
the said arguments cover the remaining