M. Nagaraj and anr. Vs. Supdt. of Police and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....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..........discloses the death as a suspicious one. if it is not a custodial death, at least it will be a death due to the negligence of the police authorities of the station. according to him, his clients viz., the children of the deceased are entitled for compensation. if this is the feeling or opinion, he is at liberty to make a representation on behalf of the minor children of the deceased to the director general of police, hyderabad requesting him to hold appropriate enquiry and also order for payment of compensation. on receipt of such representation, the director general of police, hyderabad, shall take action against the concerned and also for compensation if the children' of the deceased (are) entitled within two months from the date of receipt of such representation.3. with the direction as above, the writ petition is disposed of. no costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.

1. Heard.

2. Sri Gangula Ashok Kumar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits to send a complaint to the Director General of Police, Hyderabad, complaining about the death of two dalit persons in a suspicious manner. According to him, the death of those two persons is not a natural one, but is a clear case of custodial death. Even the report of the Magisterial enquiry discloses the death as a suspicious one. If it is not a custodial death, at least it will be a death due to the negligence of the police authorities of the Station. According to him, his clients viz., the children of the deceased are entitled for compensation. If this is the feeling or opinion, he is at liberty to make a representation on behalf of the minor children of the deceased to the Director General of Police, Hyderabad requesting him to hold appropriate enquiry and also order for payment of compensation. On receipt of such representation, the Director General of Police, Hyderabad, shall take action against the concerned and also for compensation if the children' of the deceased (are) entitled within two months from the date of receipt of such representation.

3. With the direction as above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.