Sridhar Paints Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Apr-17-2006 |
| C.E.A.M.P. No. 2 of 2006 |
| Bilal Nazki and ;G. Chandraiah, JJ. |
| 2007(208)ELT18(AP); [2007]8STJ406(AP); 2008[11]STR88 |
| Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 151 |
| Sridhar Paints Co. Pvt. Ltd. |
| Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. |
| A. Mahadev, Adv. |
| A. Rajashekar Reddy, SCCG |
| Petition dismissed |
.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase.....order1. petition under section 151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the high court will have pleased to stay all the further proceedings by the respondent pursuant to the remand order made by the cegat in 1342 to 1346 of 2004 dated 30-11-05 pending disposal of the c.e.a. no. 2/06 on the file of the high court.2. the petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the argument of sri a. mahadev, advocate for the petitioner and of sri a. rajashekar reddy, sc for central government for the respondents.3. since the question of maintainability of the appeal itself is questioned by the respondent, therefore at this stage no stay can be granted, c.e.a.m.p. is therefore dismissed.
ORDER
1. Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Petition, the High Court will have pleased to stay all the further proceedings by the Respondent pursuant to the remand order made by the CEGAT in 1342 to 1346 of 2004 dated 30-11-05 pending disposal of the C.E.A. No. 2/06 on the file of the High Court.
2. The petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the argument of Sri A. Mahadev, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, SC for Central Government for the Respondents.
3. Since the question of maintainability of the Appeal itself is questioned by the Respondent, therefore at this stage no stay can be granted, C.E.A.M.P. is therefore dismissed.