Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Abdul Ali and Others Vs. The State of Assam and Others

Abdul Ali and Others vs The State of Assam and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Guwahati Decided Jun 23, 2014
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1172716

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Guwahati High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
PIL No. 3 of 2014
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Ali and Others

Advocate Mr. A.R. Sikdar

Respondent

The State of Assam and Others

Excerpt

a.m. sapre, c.j. heard mr. a.r. sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and mr. pn goswami, learned standing counsel, education department, for the respondents. this is a pil filed by the petitioner against respondents no.8 and 9 complaining, inter alia, that the school run by the respondents no.8 and 9 under the name “pschim khurda faladi l.p. school” does not exists. in other words, it is a fake school. it was also complained that in any event the said school is being run contrary to the norms and without permission. this court directed the state respondents to make verification and submit the report in that behalf. accordingly, report dated 14.3.2013 is submitted. we have perused the report. on perusal of the report submitted by the deputy director of elementary education and district elementary education officer, we notice that allegations made by the petitioner are not correct rather they are false. in other words, the report submitted shows that the school in question has obtained permission and it exists and running since 1981, though in a smaller way. in the light of the report submitted by the state, we find no merit in the pil which seems to have been filed to harass the private respondents. the petition is, accordingly, dismissed with compensatory cost of rs.5,000/- to be recovered from the petitioners jointly and severally by respondents no.8 and 9. no cost.

Full Judgment

A.M. Sapre, C.J.

Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. PN Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, for the respondents.

This is a PIL filed by the petitioner against Respondents No.8 and 9 complaining, inter alia, that the school run by the Respondents No.8 and 9 under the name “Pschim Khurda Faladi L.P. School” does not exists. In other words, it is a fake school. It was also complained that in any event the said school is being run contrary to the norms and without permission. This Court directed the State respondents to make verification and submit the report in that behalf. Accordingly, report dated 14.3.2013 is submitted.

We have perused the report. On perusal of the report submitted by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education and District Elementary Education Officer, we notice that allegations made by the petitioner are not correct rather they are false. In other words, the report submitted shows that the school in question has obtained permission and it exists and running since 1981, though in a smaller way.

In the light of the report submitted by the State, we find no merit in the PIL which seems to have been filed to harass the private respondents.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.5,000/- to be recovered from the petitioners jointly and severally by Respondents No.8 and 9.

No cost.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial