C/M, Shree Radha. Krishna Bal Vidya Mandir, Raebareli Thru. Mgr., Daya Shanker Shukla vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Of Education Basic, Lko. And Others

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 and 5 to 9 and Mr. Shivam Sharma learned counsel for opposite party No.4. 2. Petition has been filed challenging recommendation dated 22nd January, 2025 for cancellation of recognition of the petitioner's institution. Also under challenge is the consequential show cause notice dated 22nd January, 2025. Further prayer for direction to opposite parties not to proceed in pursuance of the impugned recommendation and show cause notice has also been sought.

Learned counsel for opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition in view of the fact that the same has been filed only against recommendations and show cause notice without any final decision having been taken.

Learned counsel for petitioner in rebuttal thereto submits that the entire proceedings themselves are incompetent since earlier also a show cause notice has been issued to petitioner dated 19th May, 2022 to which reply was also submitted but no final decision has been taken till date and therefore a second notice on the same aspect amounts to harassment of petitioner. He has also adverted to the government order dated 11th January, 2019, particularly part V(1)(Kha) pertaining to recognition or its withdrawal to submit that the three member committee can be constituted only in case the reply as submitted by petitioner was not found to be satisfactory or in case no reply had been submitted. It is submitted that since in the present case, reply has already been submitted and no final orders were passed, such a three member committee could not be constituted.

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that earlier as well petitioner had filed writ C No. 28744

It appears that in pursuance of directions issued by this court, the subsequent show cause notice has been issued in pursuance of recommendations dated 22nd January, 2025. Learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to indicate any provision of law under which such recommendation or show cause notice is barred, particularly since there is no assertion that the show cause notice is without juri iction.

Learned counsel for petitioner has however placed reliance on Division Bench Judgments of this court passed in Writ Tax No. 1396 of 2024, HCL Infotech Ltd. versus Commissioner, Commercial Tax and another and also in the case of Writ Tax No. 1757 of 2024, Agmotex Fabrics Private Limited versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, examination of which clearly indicates that it pertains to input tax credit and show cause notice issued thereunder in terms of Goods and Services Tax Act 1970 particularly Section 70 thereof.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid provisions are clearly inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances since they pertain to a different Act all together and the provisions under which the show cause notice has been issued in terms of the aforesaid Act are not pari materia to the Act or provisions in the present case.

Since it is admitted that as yet no reply to the show cause notice has been submitted till date by petitioner, liberty is granted to it to file a response to the show cause notice within the period of 30 days from today which shall be considered and decided by the authority concerned in accordance with law and affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner's institution concerned.

With said direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench