PATNA, India, March 8 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Feb. 5:

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent to make necessary construction of the building of Primary School, Sikraul Tola for which land has already been donated and registered, besides the first installment of Rs. Five Lakhs has been issued for the financial year 2007-08 by the Bihar Education Project, Bhojpur. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondent authorities to detach the school from Girls Primary School, Sikraul and further direct the respondent authorities to run the school at Sikraul Tola instead of Girls Primary School, Sikraul, as it was running prior to year 2013.

3. The school, in question, was established in pursuant to the project of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, in terms with the recommendation made for opening of 255 new schools vide Memo No. 536 dated 31.08.2006, issued by the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Convener in which one school was proposed to be opened at Sikraul Tola, and accordingly the same was done.

4. Despite the formalities having been completed and the land was donated and registered as well as the first installment has also been issued, because of some rival claims between the petitioner and the respondent no. 10, the building could not be constructed. The matter has time and again brought to the attention of the authorities concerned and finally, during the pendency of the writ petition, the Block Education Officer, Tarari in light of the order passed by this Court submitted an enquiry report, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-R/A. From the enquiry report, it is evident that the District Program Officer (Primary Education and Sarva Siksha Abhiyan), Bihar Education Project, Bhojpur vide its Letter No. 2158 dated 06.03.2012 has already issued order for release of the fund, but on account of the dispute between the rival claimants, the construction could not be done.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that now the dispute has already been resolved and despite the notice having been issued to the private respondent no. 10, he chose not to appear. On account of the aforesaid facts, especially the dispute which is not in existence, the career of the students cannot be put to lurch. The children below the age of 14 years have right to get free and compulsory education in terms with the mandate of Article 21(A) of the Constitution of India, which encompasses within itself sufficient infrastructure so that the students can pursue their education. In the aforesaid premise, he submits before this Court that the authorities should take all appropriate initiatives to get the school building constructed, as early as possible.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTkzMTMjMjAxOSMxI04=-EJ5tvtcZAgk=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.