Dinesh Upadhyay And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others

Held

The Court held that the appeal was without merit and that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands. The learned Single Judge's finding that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Act, 2009, was upheld. The Court found that the petitioner's statement regarding GST payment was contradicted by his own admission of paying Rs. 50-60 thousand in the financial year 2018-19, and by the fact that he was running a shop with a monthly rent of Rs. 2,200. Furthermore, the Court found the petitioner's claim of being BPL to be false, as the document presented was not a BPL card. The Court concluded that the petitioner had made a false statement on oath and attempted to mislead the court. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the appellant.

Facts

The appeal challenges a judgment dated December 7, 2020, which dismissed a writ petition. The writ petition had challenged an order dated July 17, 2019, by which the admission of the petitioner's son in a school under the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, was cancelled. The cancellation was based on the ground that the petitioner's annual income exceeded one lakh rupees. The petitioner contended that no opportunity of hearing was provided and that he belonged to the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner ran a shop, paid a monthly rent of Rs. 2,200, and had paid Rs. 50-60 thousand towards GST in the financial year 2018-19, contradicting his claim of BPL status.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, based on his income. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of the income eligibility criteria under the Act. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the learned Single Judge's finding was legally unsustainable. He claimed he did not pay any GST and presented a document to the court to support this. He also reiterated that he was a BPL candidate and thus entitled to the benefit. Revenue's Arguments: The State argued that the petitioner was not a BPL member. They relied on the petitioner's own statement and the documents produced, which indicated payment of Rs. 50-60 thousand towards GST in the financial year 2018-19. They also noted that the petitioner did not dispute running a business, though he qualified it as having been closed for the last three to four years, with a caveat that the shop was still being opened.