Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1987/2023 of EDUCATION WELFARE SOCIETY HALDWANI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 18 August 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1987/2023 Education Welfare Society Haldwani …Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand …Respondent Hon’ble Manoj
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS/1987/2023
Education Welfare Society Haldwani
…Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
…Respondent
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1.
Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Ms. Deyanshi Joshi,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
2.
Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
3.
Petitioner claims to be President of
Education Welfare Society, Haldwani. He has challenged the order dated 13.12.2022
issued by Secretary, Education, Government of Uttarakhand, whereby amount payable as compensation for students belonging to Economically Weaker Sections, who are to be given free education under Right to Education Act, was determined.
4.
It is contended that the determination
made
by
Government
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
dated 13.12.2022 is not as per Rule 13 of Uttarakhand Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011.
5. Learned State Counsel, however, raised the question of locus and maintainability of writ petition by contending that though petitioner claims to be representing the association of all private schools, within the State, but neither list of Members is enclosed with the writ petition nor any resolution authorising petitioner to file writ petition on behalf of all private schools is brought on record. Learned State Counsel further submits that as per
Government Order dated 13.12.2022, the amount payable as fee to private schools for students, who are to be given free education, was enhanced from ₹1,383/- to ₹1,893/-. He submits that challenge by petitioner to upward revision of fee is without any substance, especially when he did not challenge the earlier determination.
6. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Since there is no resolution passed by General Body of the Association, which petitioner claims to be representing, authorising him to file this writ petition, the standing of the petitioner to raise the issue on behalf of association of private schools becomes doubtful.
7. Even otherwise also, State Government has taken a decision to make upward revision of fee payable to private schools qua students who are to be given free education under Right to Education Act, therefore, this Court finds substance in the contention raised by learned State Counsel that the challenge thrown by petitioner is without any substance, when earlier determination was not challenged.
8. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to management of individual private school(s) to make representation(s) to the State Government, if it is dissatisfied with the fee revised by Government vide order dated 13.12.2022. It shall be open to the members of schools to raise all contentions before the Competent Authority.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
18.08.2026 Aswal