EDUCATION

Pvt schools flouting land allotment rules: PIL
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, May 25
Over 1,200 private schools in the Capital, which were allotted land at concessional prices, are allegedly violating the land allotment clause of providing free education to a certain percentage of poor children, said a public interest litigation filed in the Delhi High Court.

The high court, taking cognizance, has issued notices to the city government, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on a petition alleging that these agencies had failed in taking action against unaided recognised private schools, which were allotted land at concessional rates, for violating the condition that they will grant free education to poor children.

A division bench, comprising Chief Justice S. B. Sinha and Mr Justice A. K. Sikri, issued notices, returnable on August 13, on a PIL, filed by lawyers’ group ‘Social Jurist’ through counsel Ashok Agarwal. The PIL said that of the 1,500 unaided recognised private schools in Delhi, more than 1,200 had been allotted public land at throwaway prices with an object that they would provide free education to a certain percentage of poor children.

Most of these schools were violating an express condition in their land allotment letter which provided that they would have to discharge a social obligation and admit 25 per cent children from the weaker sections, it said.

While the schools were not complying with the conditions, the authorities were totally insensitive and apathetic towards the rights of the poor and had not taken any action against such schools, it added.

The petition annexed a list of 265 prominent schools of the national Capital, which were allotted several acres of land for ‘small amounts’ but were not providing free education to poor children. The petitioner sought action by the authorities and implementation of the allotment conditions by the schools.

It was also claimed that, among other things, the conditions included that the schools would not increase the tuition fees without prior sanction of the Directorate of Education and that they would not refuse admission to the residents of nearby localities.

COURTS

HC calls for records of CMM’s order against Tihar Jail Superintendent
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, May 25
The Delhi High Court has called for the records of a case in which the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate here had ordered the attachment of Tihar Jail Superintendent as bail surety for failing to produce an accused who was sent to a Sonepat court for appearing in a case and was detained there.

A division Bench, comprising Justices Devinder Gupta and Shameet Mukerjee, directed the Court Registrar to produce on July 9 all the records which led to the passing of the order by CMM Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and extended the stay on the operation of her order.

The Bench also ordered that copies of their order and the Jail Superintendent’s petition be supplied to the CMM. Hearing Superintendent O. P. Mishra’s petition earlier this month, the high court had stayed his arrest and the operation of the CMM’s April 15 order. As Mr Mishra failed to get the accused back, despite having been directed to do so by the CMM on three occasions, the magistrate had issued bailable warrant against him and asked for a surety of Rs 5,000 failing which he was to face arrest.

Mr Mishra then approached the high court saying he was being illegally prosecuted for non-production of the undertrial. He challenged the CJM’s warrants of arrest and attachment against him for not being able to produce the accused. The petitioner said he was bound to follow the orders of the production of undertrials on warrants issued by judicial officers under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. He could also not assert his authority on any court. He could only make a request to the court concerned and was not empowered to command the return of the undertrial from the custody of a judicial officer. Hence, he was not liable, if an accused was detained under the orders of a judicial officer, he said and added that the detention of the accused persons by the judicial officers of various states was beyond his power and control and he could not be held liable for prosecution for non-production in such circumstances.