Legal Notice Under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code 1908 of Proposed Writ Petition For

LEGAL NOTICE UNDER SECTION 80 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 OF PROPOSED WRIT PETITION FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MR.STEVEN. L. D’SOUZA V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY-GOVT OF MAHARASHTRA;EDUCATION SECRETARY,GOVT OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHER RESPONDENTS UNDER PROVISION OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 19, 21, 30 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND FOR VIOLATION OF OTHER STATUTORY ACTS AND BINDING JUDGEMENTS OF SUPREME COURT AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT.

IN THE MATTER OF

1) UNJUST DERECOGNITION OF ST. MARYS SSC,HIGH SCHOOL MAZAGAON, MUMBAI 400010,

2) FAILURE TO GRANT AUTONOMY TO MINORITY EDUCATIONAL SCHOOLS AND HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 3O OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND BINDING JUDGEMENTS OF HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

Mr. Steven L. D’Souza ---Proposed Petitioner Writ-PIL 103, Karan A, Vishal Nagar, Mithchowki, Malad Marve Rd, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064.

Versus 1.) The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032 --- Respondent No.1

2 ) Shri Sunil Chauhan, Deputy Director Of Education, Mumbai Region, Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Road(w). Mumbai 400004 ------Respondent No.2 3).. Principal Secretary Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032------Respondent No.3

4), Principal Secretary School Education and Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032-- ---Respondent No.4

5.) Principal Secretary Minority Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032-- --Respondent No.5

THE LEGAL NOTICE OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE-NAMED. KINDLY TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN PROPOSED WRIT PETITION FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN BOMBAY HIGH COURT –

1.) A seven member bench of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P.Gupta v. The President of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 149 had affirmed that any member of the public having sufficient interest can approach the court for enforcing constitutional or legal rights of other persons and redressal of common grievance- Honorable Justice J.Bhagwati had laid down the criteria for public interest litigation, as well as the option of converting a letter, addressed to the chief justice of supreme court (also applicable to high court if under article 226 constitution) ,by such an individual acting pro bono publico, into a regular writ petition vide its inherent powers under article 32 of the constitution: relevant extract is as under: "Where a legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness of disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction or order writ in the High Court under Art. 226 or in case of any breach of fundamental right to this court under Art. 32.

2) In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2005) 6 SCC 344, paras 38, 39 this Court has observed and directed “… Wherever the statutory provision requires service of notice as a condition precedent for filing of Cases, it is not only necessary for the Governments or departments or other statutory bodies to send a reply to such a notice but it is further necessary to properly deal with all material points and issues raised in the notice. The Governments, government departments or statutory authorities are defendants in a large number of Cases pending in various courts in the country. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in a large number of cases either the notice is not replied to or in the few cases where a reply is sent, it is generally vague and evasive. The result is that the object underlying Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 and similar provisions gets defeated. It not only gives rise to avoidable litigation but also results in heavy expenses and costs to the exchequer as well. A proper reply can result in reduction of litigation between the State and the citizens. In case a proper reply is sent, either the claim in the notice may be admitted or the area of controversy curtailed, or the citizen may be satisfied on knowing the stand of the State. There is no accountability in the Government, Central or State or the statutory authorities in violating the spirit and object of Section 80… These provisions cast an implied duty on all Governments and States and statutory authorities concerned to send appropriate reply to such notices. Having regard to the existing state of affairs, we direct all Governments, Central or State or other authorities concerned, whenever any statute requires service of notice as a condition precedent for filing of suit or other proceedings against it, to nominate, within a period of three months, an officer who shall be made responsible to ensure that replies to notices under Section 80 or similar provisions are sent within the period stipulated in a particular legislation. The replies shall be sent after due application of mind. Despite such nomination, if the court finds that either the notice has not been replied to or the reply is evasive and vague and has been sent without proper application of mind, the court shall ordinarily award heavy costs against the Government and direct it to take appropriate action against the officer concerned including recovery of costs from him.”. 3) By this legal notice of proposed PIL petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to aforesaid respondents 1 to 5 representing the State of Maharashtra, the proposed Petitioner is seeking necessary action by the respondents to comply with the basic principles of our Constitution and the law as laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court and Bombay High Court. The proposed petitioner is aggrieved by blatant disregard of settled case law of Supreme Court as well as protection of autonomy of minority educational institutes guaranteed by Article 29 and 30 of the Constitution Of India 1950. Despite several Supreme court decisions, many by Constitutional Benches since 2002 onwards, The Government Of Maharashtra continues to persist with the archaic MEPS Rules 1977/1981 which stifle minority autonomy guaranteed in the constitution, and is ultra vires of many of the Apex court Judgements. The government of Maharashtra did promise to amend the acts/rules last year 2010 in last winter session of the Vidhan Sabha in light of Supreme court and Bombay high court decisions. Instead of promised amendments, The proposed petitioner craves leave to submit that subsequently minority educational institutes , especially Christian educational schools and institutes have been systematically targeted and subjected to unjust, discriminatory and hostile harassment, culminating in the unjust and arbitrary derecognition of his alma mater St. Marys SSC High school, Mazagaon,in the last week of May 2011, and thereafter the threat of certain ministers , ironically the Minister In charge of Minority Development, to close down the schools for alleged non adherence to minority quota norms, a condition not prescribed either in the Constitution, or in any Supreme Court Judgement , or any Statutory Act. The proposed petitioner submits that matter has been brought to notice of the Chief Minister including an email few weeks back sent personally by the petitioner to fulfil the promise to amend the relevant educational acts and rules in accordance to assurance given publicly last year before winter session of Vidhan Sabha.. The Management and trustees of his alma mater, The Jesuits fathers, one of the world’s most renowned and leading educationists in the world, and more specifically India, who run the school since 1932, and the school which has distinguished alumni like padma vibhushan awardees, as wellas the present chief justice of the honorable Supreme Court Of India, leading industrialists. Sportsmen who captained India etc have to now focus on fighting an unjust derecognition of the school, just because a disgruntled parent, who failed in pressurizing the school to grant special favours to his ward who failed in the annual exams, tried hopelessly to extract his vengeance, with active patronage of a sitting minister in the state government. Mercifully the Honourable high court has since granted stay on the derecognition, and has taken strong objection to the conduct of the education department arbitrary behavior under influence of a powerful disgruntled parents, throwing aside all norms of propriety and justice. , The petitioner submits that under these circumstances, he is constrained to serve this legal notice to the five respondents representing the state through this legal notice and he further submits that if the law is amended as per the prayer at end of petition, and if the supreme court decisions relied upon are implementeed, then it will help the school and other minority schools facing similar procedural impediments finally get justice 4) The proposed petitioner humbly states that he is a citizen of India and is permanently residing at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra. The proposed petitioner, belongs to the Christian Community and his family have been domiciled in Maharashtra for three generations. The proposed petitioner, desirous of joining the national mainstream appeared for the civil services -UPSC exam-in the year 1985 and 1986 and in both the years did the state proud by obtaining 2nd rank in the state. The proposed petitioner is ex-IPs-1986 maharashtra cadre and ex-IRS-1987-(customs and central excise cadre) and retired from govt service vide acceptance of resignation in January 2008 . The petitioner took study leave for 2 years-!994-96 and in his mid thirties successfully cleared MBA(Finance) from the leading Business Mgt. College in Mumbai, consistently ranked among The top Ten in the country. Presently he is working as leading corporate management consultant and legal tax advisor, besides coaching students for the civil services. The proposed petitioner has always worked for civic causes, especially for the cause of Mumbai and the state of Maharashtra-especially after the torrential flood of 26 July 2005, wherein he has compiled a voluminous citizen’s report , copies of which among others were also sent to president, pm, cm, etc and to all leading bureaucrats/departments at centre and the state, and which has been quietly and regularly being followed up both with state and central govt. departments, for concrete action. The proposed Petitioner has worked for various social and community causes-a few illustrative examples- i)writ pil in pereirawadi-bombay high court august 2008 that initially led to stay of demolition based on CM’s order produced in court: ii)legal notice to chief secretary , cm etc on gorai tourism sez may 2008 that led to tourism secretary scrapping project; iii)one of 52 respondents that were called by union environment ministry for new CRZ legislation-many of his suggestion-redevlpmnt old buildings. Gaothans etc included; iv) and one of the proponent and ardent supporter to best of 5 education scheme-based on all india civil service experience, saw that experience, legislation other states emulated to prevent violation procedural legal norms The proposed petitioner solemnly affirms that he prefers anonymity and getting things done quietly, and that he is not a publicity interest litigant, but compelled to take up the matter as last resort , with the state administration , so that the matter can be settled amicably as done very recently when at the request of Shri Gordon Dsouza, the President Of BCS-Bombay Catholic Sabha-the organization which originally filed the writ on the demolition of crosses issue, the petitioner co-ordinated with state govt. authorities to work out an amicable settlement on an issue the whole Christian community was agitated about. We expect similar response and understanding from the state government on this sensitive issue for the community as well, an issue where in the community has done yeoman service to the nation, quite disproportionate to its numerical strength. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this legal notice under section 80 of CPC for proposed writ PIL petition in Bombay High Court. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

5) A Coram of 11 Judges, not a common feature in the Supreme Court of India, sat to hear and decide T.M.A.Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 (hereinafter 'Pai Foundation', for short).- A Constitution Bench sat to interpret the 11-Judge Bench decision in Pai Foundation which it did vide its judgment dated 14.8.2003 (reported as - Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 697; "Islamic Academy" for short)- But it is settled that establishing and administering of an educational institution for imparting knowledge to the students is an occupation, protected by Article 19(1) (g) and additionally by Article 26(a), if there is no element of profit generation. As of now, imparting education has come to be a means of livelihood for some professionals and a mission in life for some altruists. Reliance was placed on previous Supreme Court Decisions- They were Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645, St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi (1992) 1 SCC 558, Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974) 1 SCC 717 and In Re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957, (1958) SCR 995. Order dated July 15, 2004 in P.A. Inamdar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 139 Order dated July 29, 2004 in Pushpagiri Medical Society v. State of Kerala and Ors., (2004) 8 SCC Order dated July 15, 2004 . The issue in favour of protective Minority Autonomy for Minority educational institutes as guaranteed in Constitution of India was resolved in landmark P.A. Inamdar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. on 12 August, 2005,in Appeal (civil) 5041 of 2005 by a seven member bench. And earlier supreme court order- (2004) 8 SCC 139 Order dated July 29, 2004 in Pushpagiri Medical Society v. State of Kerala and Ors., (2004) 8 SCC .

6) The Christian community has been pursuing matter with the state government to change existing education laws in accordance to acceptance of Minority autonomy as guaranteed in Article 30 of the Constitution, and in accordance to honorable Supreme Court decisions quoted above. In view of the stringent guidelines prescribed by the Bombay high court as well as the apex court, the Democratic Front government in the State in first week of October 2010 decided to amend the laws to provide for more powers to minority educational institutions. This, said senior officials, will give schools more freedom in managing their staff. This includes the appointment of principals, qualified teachers, etc. The decision will come as a welcome move to managements of minority institutions that have been fighting for more say in the running of their schools. “ The high court as well as the apex court had specifically observed the rights of minority observed the rights of minority institutions, particularly when it comes to conditions of service of their employees and overall management. On the basis of the guidelines of the judiciary, The State government decided on amending the relevant law. The state government has proposed that the Maharastra Employees of Private Schools Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, be amended so that the management of the minority institutions can be awarded more freedom. Once the Act is amended, there will be no interference from the government when it comes to the administration of minority institutions. The Supreme Court has accepted powers of the minority institutions to appoint a qualified headmaster regardless of seniority, the hiring of qualified staff, and right to relax qualifications. The state government has also proposed that it will not be binding on the minority institutions to reserve adequate number of posts for members of backward classes. It has/also been proposed that minority schools should not be forced to appoint persons from the list of surplus teachers declared by the school education department, even if there is a vacancy. The proposed assurance to table the bill in winter session of Vidhan sabha, like so many promises made by politicians, still remains unfulfilled to this day.

7) In the second specific issue of Derecognition of St. Marys SSC High School, the institution which is my alma mater, the brief facts are as under. An NGO, Buland Chhava, complained to the Education Department that our 78 year old alma mater St Mary’s High School SSC in Mazgaon raised Rs.1,45,70,881 between 2000 and 2008 in the guise of collecting various fines and funds from parents . The NGO accused the school of collecting money in the guise of various fines and funds over the years. It alleged that an RTI application filed by the NGO revealed that between 2000 and 2008 the school had raised Rs. 1,45,70,881. The 78-year –old St Mary’s High School at Mazgaon therafter were served with a show cause notice by the Education Department over alleged irregularities in the school. As alleged in the complaint. . The NGO’s Nana Patil, who complained about these issues to the Education Department, said in a press statement “While the school has violated rules to collect money from parents, they have failed to provide basic facilities such as toilets. The approval of the school should be cancelled.” Deputy director Sunil Chauhan of the Education department,(Respondent No.2) in an ex-parte order in last week of May 2011 found the school to be deficient on 11 counts that included charging capitation fees, lack of infrastructure, etc. 8) The gist of the show cause notice that led to the derecognition order issued by Respondent No2-Deputy director of Education , Mumbai in the last week of May 2011 is as under—translated from Marathi - ST MARY’s ORDER- The Education Inspector of South Zone, Mumbai has brought to the notice of the Deputy Director that Rule No.3.2 of the M.E.P.S has been defied by the School Management.

1. Capability and Genuineness of the Management (Working of the School Committee, Office bearers of the Management, and the legitimacy of the Committee, all matters pending in court / Charity Commissioner)

The Management has not established the School Committee as per the MEPS rules 1981. No meetings were taken. Therefore no minutes have been maintained. Thus Rule no. 3.3 Clause 10b has been violated.

2. The Financial transaction of the School / the Financial stability of the Management

Donations taken at the time of admission, Fines collected from the students, collecting Teachers Benefit Fund from students and parents, Primary Teachers Gratuity Fund, Poor Student Fund, all these funds were collected by the Management against the law. It proves that the financial transaction of the school is not as per rules and regulations. The H.M. and the Management have illegally collected Rs.1,45,70881 from the parents and students. Thus Rule No 3.2 (3) (4) of the MEPS has been violated.

3. Physical Infrastructure (School Building, Playground, Classroom, Laboratory, Library, Washroom, Facilities for drinking water and Furniture etc)

The school is 4 storeyed, the strength of the school is 995, yet as per the Govt Circular dated 11.11.99 there is no toilet on any floor. Although the Inspector of South Zone had brought this to the notice of the Management in writing, so far no provision has been made

There is no washroom available on any floor either for teacher or for students. The table, bench, chairs although available as per necessity, yet some of them are not in good condition. There is a need to repair all such benches.

4. Education Facilities (Instructional Material, Science Equipment, Library Books, Sports Equipment etc)

The school has two separate laboratories. However, it does not have adequate equipment. Though the school has a library, essential books for teachers are not available. There is a lack of Reference Material. 5. Educational Planning and Implementation (Teaching-Learning Process, Annual and Day to Day Planning)

It has been noticed that the teachers are teaching as per their whims and fancies without daily lesson plan or group planning. During Inspection it has been noticed that the teachers have not been using Teaching Aids. The H.M. and the Supervisor have not maintained the daily lesson plan book as per the MEPS Rules 1981. The H.M. and the Supervisor must observe 2 lessons a week. It has been noticed that this requirement has not been fulfilled.

6. Implementation of Service Condition Rule ( Complaints made by Teachers, Salaries of the Employees, Appointments of Teaching, Non-Teaching Staff, Transfers, Promotion, Permanency of the Teachers etc.)

The Management has submitted the proposed of Fr Baptist Pinto to be notified as H.M. through a letter dated 1/6/2010 and have appointed him as a transfer from St Xavier’s High School which is run by the Bombay St. Xavier’s Society to St. Mary’s High School, Mazagaon. After that, the Management has once again sent a proposal of Fr Baptist Pinto stating that Fr Baptist Pinto had submitted his resignation on 21st April 2010. The Management accepted his resignation 31-05- 2010 and has appointed him as H.M. in St Mary’s High School. It means that the Management has sent two separate proposals of one appointment to the post of H.M. There has been two different methods followed in this matter.

The service book records are not updated, the medical report record has not been updated.

7. School Records ( Registers that need to be kept with regard to students and employees, its up to date entry, for instance the General Register, Attendance Sheet, record of admission and results, service books, daily cash book, dead stock register, laboratory register, library register, confidential report)

Account records, accounts statements, dead stock registers have not been maintained as per requirement. The records are not updated. With regards to the finance no criteria has been followed.

8. Standard of Education / Results ( The Procedure of all the Exams, Correction of Answer Booklets, Rules with regard to Promotion, Standard of Teaching / Learning, last 3 years SSC results, participation in SSC Board work)

In 2008-2009 the marks of 55 students from class 5 to 9 of the second semester were increased by 1 to 10 marks in subjects like Hindi, English, Marathi, Maths, Science and EVS outside the Rules.

9. Parents Teachers Association The H.M. had called for a meeting of the PTA and formed the PTA Committee. The election of the PTA was not as per the rules. The PTA has not been formed as per the Guidelines. So also, fees have been collected for the PTA which is not according to the Rules. 10. Miscellaneous (The Genuineness of Statistics, Account of Term Fee, Approved School fees, Students Medical Check Up, Book-Bank, Implementation of Vision Schemes, Weight of School Bags, Implementation of New Subjects etc.)

The school has not kept any Medical Check Up record of the students. The school should do the medical check up every year.

The Education dept. had given some directives to the Management to be present for the hearing of the Appeal made in the context of Right To Information. However, the Education Inspector has no authority, thus it was informed to the Department and the Management did not come for the hearing. Thus you have violated the Rules of RTI Act.

Considering all the above points, the Management has taken illegal fees, donations, violating the RTI Rule, violating the MEPS Rules 3.2 (2), (4), (8), (9), (11). All these rules have been violated by the Management. So also, the Management is violating all the rules of MEPS.

Therefore why should your school not be derecognized from the academic year 2010-2011 as per the (Secondary School Code) No. 7.2

Kindly give your explanation within a week in two copies. If you don’t submit your explanation within a week it means that you have nothing to explanation within a week it means that you have nothing to explain and so in accordance with the law further procedures will be carried forward that will be binding on you. Please take note of it.

9) On May 24th 2011, in an ex-parte order, the education department sent a circular to the school derecognizing the school. On further appeal,, St Mary’s School (SSC) in Mazgaon which was was issued a de-recognition notice., GK Mhamane, director of education, Pune, in an order passed on May 31st 2011stayed the decision of the deputy director till further orders were passed. In a further relief for St Mary's High School (SSC), Mazgaon,, which was derecognized by the state, the Bombay high court in first week of July 2011 restrained the director of education, Pune, from implementing any order he proposes to pass in appeal against the derecognition. The judges noted the serious allegations in the matter in connection with passing of the order by the deputy director to derecognize the school, and asked the additional public prosecutor to take instructions and inform the court at the next hearing. The court was informed that the director of education would pass his order on July 8. The judges said that if the order was against the petitioners, it may not be implemented till July 18. The judges directed the order to be placed before them at the next hearing on July 14. The Bombay high court also allowed principals of St Mary's High School In the interim, (SSC) at Mazgaon and St Xavier's HighSchool at Dhobitalao to discharge their duties. The case is presently pending still in Bombay High Court. Meanwhile in first week of July 2011, Around 7th-8th July, the petitioner formally requested the Chief Minister Of Maharashtra to expedite the amendments proposed nearly one year back, so as to resolve long pending disputes between many Christian schools and the state Government. A strong protest was also made on threats being issued by the Minister In charge of Minority Development in the press to close down minority schools as if it was his fiefdom, disregarding protection granted by the Constitution and by various Supreme Court Judgements. Mercifully Sanity was restored, and the minister , whose primary job ironically is to protect minority interests, reportedly did a volte face, and as many politicians do, said he was misquoted.

GROUNDS FOR SERVING LEGAL NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS -

10) The proposed petitioner submits that in PA Inamdar landmark case decided by Supreme court seven member bench in August 2005, it is clear that constitutional guarantee of autonomy to minority institutions under Article 30 and to unaided non-minority institutions under Article 19(1)(g). running an educational institution is a guaranteed fundamental right of 'occupation' under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Article 19(6) permits State to make regulations and place reasonable restrictions in public interest upon the rights enjoyed by citizens under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. As held in St. Xavier's and re- affirmed in Pai Foundation the right to establish and administer educational institutions by minorities under Article 30 of the Constitution is not an absolute right meaning thereby that it is subject to such regulations that satisfy a dual test that is : the test of 'reasonableness' and 'any regulation regulating the educational character of the institutions so that it is conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community and for the others who resort to it'. Any regulation which impinges upon the minority character of the institutions is constitutionally impermissible. It is submitted that between the right of minorities to establish and administer the educational institutions and the right of the State to regulate educational activities for maintaining standard of education, a balance has to be struck. The regulation in relation to recognition/affiliation operates in the area of standard of excellence and are unquestionable if they do not seriously curtail or destroy the right of minorities to administer their educational institutions. Only in maintaining standards of education, State can insist by framing regulations that they be followed but in all other areas the rights of minority must be protected. It is also submitted that the question of quota 50:50 for State and management as referred to by supreme court in St. Stephen's was in respect of aided minority educational institutions and is only applicable to higher educational minority institutes, not minority run schools. 11)The petitioner submits that the norms for regulations on minority schools and even colleges are restricted by the following norms spelt out by the supreme court in PA Inamdar case- Aid and affiliation or recognition, both by State, bring in some amount of regulation as a condition of receiving grant or recognition. The scope of such regulations, as spelt out by 6-Judge Bench decision in Rev. Sidhrajbhai case AIR 1963 SC 540 and 9-Judge Bench case in St. Xavier's must satisfy the following tests: (a) the regulation is reasonable and rational; (b) it is regulative of the essential character of the institution and is conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it; (c) it is directed towards maintaining excellence of the education and efficiency of administration. The petitioner humbly submits that Many GRs, rules and acts of the state educational department far exceed the restrictions imposed by the supreme court, and hence unless the department amends-modifies the same, they are violative of article 30 of constitution of India as interpreted by supreme court and hence liable to be set aside.

12) The petitioner submits that The honourable supreme court in case of In Kerala Education Bill, the scope and ambit of right conferred by Article 30(1) came up for consideration. Article 30(1) does not require that minorities based on religion should establish educational institutions for teaching religion only or that linguistic minority should establish educational institution for teaching its language only. Thus, the twin objects sought to be achieved by Article 30(1) in the interest of minorities are: (i) to enable such minority to conserve its religion and language, and (ii) to give a thorough, good general education to the children belonging to such minority. So long as the institution retains its minority character by achieving and continuing to achieve the above said two objectives, the institution would remain a minority institution.

13) ) The petitioner submits that The honourable supreme court in landmark TA PAI case in 2002 affirmed that Conditions which can normally be permitted to be imposed on the educational institutions receiving the grant must be related to the proper utilization of the grant and fulfillment of the objectives of the grant without diluting the minority status of the educational institution, as held in PAI Foundation (See para 143 thereof). It is Pertinent to note That St Marys SSC did not receive any non salary grant since 2004, and by virtue of non violation of any such condition by the school, there definitely exists no case for absolute derecognition of a 78 year old renowned school in an unfair, arbitrary manner.

14) The proposed petitioner is aggrieved that the deputy director education(respondent no 2) who passed the derecognition order ,while hearing in the case was taken up by the office superintendent, and hence it was vitiated, making a mockery of principles of adjudication and principles of natural justice. . In Automotive Tyre Manufactures Assocn v. Designated Authority (2011-TIOL- 03-SC-CUS) the Supreme Court held that if one person hears and another decides, a personal hearing would become an empty formality. An order passed by a quasi judicial authority without complying with the principles of natural justice would therefore be invalid. The same principle would govern the present case.. Efficiency in the disposal of quasi judicial proceedings is important but, that cannot be at the cost of overriding fundamental principles known to the law of the land.”

15) The petitioner submits that insistence on formal resignation of a principal of a minority school and then appointment as through GR and MEPS rules 1977/1981 is violative and ultra vires of the Constitution and hence liable to be struck down or amended accordingly, since it amounts to contempt of binding decisions of Supreme court. "The high court as well as the apex court had specifically observed the rights of minority institutions, particularly when it comes to conditions of service of their employees and overall management. The Supreme Court has accepted powers of the minority institutions to appoint a qualified headmaster regardless of seniority, the hiring of qualified staff, and right to relax qualifications.

16) The proposed petitioner is aggrieved that the principals and headmasters have not been paid their legitimate salaries and other dues, despite being very experienced senior educationists over a mere procedural requirement, which has since been struck down in various supreme court judgements cited supra. Right to livelihood with dignity is a fundamental right which springs from Article 19 and more specifically right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ratio of judgement of the Apex Court in Noise Pollution, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 733, where-in the Supreme Court held that Right to Life enshrined in Article 21 is not of mere survival or existence but right of persons to live life with dignity, to make it more meaningful, complete and worth living was blatantly violated by respondents in this case . Similarly In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746- the supreme Court held that another aspect of Article 21 was that it included the "right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head. . Both the apex court decisions in noise pollution case and francis mullin case decisions violated in present case under reference.

17) The proposed petitioner places reliance on the supreme court verdict in case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1982) 3 SCC 24]. In the case of Bachan Singh, this court, inter alia, held, that "Article 14 enacts primarily a guarantee against arbitrariness and inhibits State action, whether legislative or executive, which suffers from the vice of arbitrariness" and that "Article 14. Every facet of the law which deprives a person of his life or personal liberty would therefore have to stand the test of reasonableness, fairness and justness in order to be outside the inhibition of Article 21." (Emphasis supplied), the proposed petitioner contends that action of derecognition of a reputed 78 year old school which has given the nation illustrious padma vibhushan winners, and the present chief justice of the supreme court of India was arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable , given the facts and circumstances of the case. The proposed petitioner places reliance on the supreme court verdict in case of Barium Chemicals--[AIR 1967 SC 295] ,wherein it was further observed that:- "authority must be exercised honestly and not for corrupt or ulterior purposes. The authority must form the requisite opinion honestly and offer applying its mind to the relevant materials before it." The proposed petitioner feels that on facts and circumstances of the case, relevant material was not considered, derecognition was instigated by a disgruntled parent, having high political connections and clearly having ulterior purposes and oblique motives as accepted by the puisine judges in july 2011 order staying the derecognition notice until further orders from the High court.

18) The petitioner submits that in third week of July 2011, The state minorities commission said the de-recognition of st. Mary’s High School was “absolutely illegal” and rapped the state government “for not conducting its own inquiry before taking a decision concerning the future of nearly 1,000 students”. The three-member commission said the decision of the deputy director of education (DDE) to derecognize the school two months ago, is “contrary to facts and should be immediately cancelled”. The commission concluded that issues were raised with the intention to harass the school. One of the reasons for the de-recognition was that the laboratory and library were ill equipped. It pointed out that the DDE could have directed the school to take necessary steps to improve it. The commission observed that if facilities were lacking it did not reflect in the school’s good results. Education department officials should visit the school, guide authorities and help rectify mistakes, stated the commission, adding that the DDE should give its approval to the appointment of the school’s principal. The commission noted that the crime branch (unit III) conducted an inquiry and found the school had not committed illegalities as it was being portrayed. It has directed that henceforth no action be taken against the school. The school has been directed to spend funds collected for providing facilities to students. The commission being a quasi-judicial authority under an act of Parliament, The state government officials should accept its recommendations, and revoke the respondent no2 illegal order. . Respondent no 5, being seniormost official in charge of minority development, should ensure that the minority commission order is accepted by all other respondents and the derecognition order revoked at the earliest.

19) The proposed petitioner is aggrieved that respondent no 5 did not inform the minority development minister that there are no minimum minority quota prescribed for St Marys SSC and other minority schools, and that reservation quota that the minister was mentioning recently was only applicable to higher educational institutes, not schools run by minorities. As per the GR issued on August 4, 2008, only higher and professional education institutions are supposed to have a 50% minority quota in case of aided institutions and 51% for unaided institutions,. Also, this requirement is not mandatory for schools, since school education does not come under the purview of higher education. The GR issue on August 4, 2008, states that only higher and professional education institutions are supposed to have a 50% minority quota in case of aided institutions and 51% for unaided institutions.

20)The proposed petitioner is aggrieved that respondent no 2selectively chose only St Marys SSC on frivolous grounds including procedural violations, mere allegations of capitation fees despite CID not have established any malafides or misappropriation on mere allegation of collection of capitation fees over a eight year hit by law of limitation. Even more outrageous is derecognition for lack of toilets. The state economic survey for 2009-10, which was published on last week of March 2010, has revealed that 36% of schools in Maharashtra do not have toilets for girl students. What’s further startling is that 12% of schools do not even have the facility of drinking water. According to the survey, 77.1% schools in the state have common toilets for boys and girls, and only 37.2% state schools have computers The education minister himself admitted in an interview to India Today magazine that more than half the schools, especially govt schools have no toilets, what to speak of separate toilets for girls, which incidentially leads to dropout rate among girl students increasing. None of these schools are derecognized. Why selective discrimination for St Marys alone. Only after the petitioner raised this query, a few schools, mostly one room structures in western suburbs and Mira Bhayandhar were also derecognised. This selective and arbitrary discrimination is a clear violation of the right to equality,, violation of article 14 of the constitution of India. it is pertinent to note that in second week of august 2011, The Supreme Court gave last opportunity to the states for providing potable drinking water facility to all government schools by September 15th 2011. A bench headed by justice Dalveer Bhandari pulled up the states that openly admitted failure to provide the facility in schools . The court had earlier .on April 29 directed the states to ensure the facility is extended to all schools by May 31.The petitioner affirms that respondent no 2and other respondents should focus on providing basic facilities to all schools, and not harassing better quipped schools over lack of toilets, procedural norms and baseless outdated capitation fee charges , investigation of which CID has yet to find any incriminating evidence, as per records available till date. Also with regard the accounts over 12 years were audited as per statutory requirement, the crime branch has reportedly closed the case . The amount of Rs 1.4 crores has been audited by statutory auditors, it works to Rs 12 crores a year or rRs I lakh a month of Rs100 per student per month. Capitation fees are gain for person or mgt. since all these funds used for the school which did not receive non-salary grants for last 7 years, the Economic offences wing of the Crime Branch reportedly send file back to education dept. St. Marys SSC Mazagaon, and many other aided schools have been denied salary grant since 2004. St. Mary’s School has not received since 2004 any non-salary grants. The entire non-salary expenditure has been borne by the management through its own resources. The aided schools, unlike the elite unaided ones, serve the lower and middle strata of society with similar high quality education at a lower cost. Non-receipt of non-salary grant has compelled aided schools to charge students or utilize their own resources,

21) The petitioner is aggrieved that The future of nearly 1000 students was thrown to the winds, just before the school session was to open, by a biased, arbitrary and unjust derecognition order, forgetting that right to education under article 21A is an important fundamental right today, and without an alternate arrangement in place. “it is far too well settled to admit of any argument that the procedure prescribed by law for the deprivation of the right conferred by Art. 21 must be fair, just and reasonable. (E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 2 SCR 348 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621 M. H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 1 SCR 192 ; Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1979) 1 SCR 392 Sita Ram v. State of U. P., (1979) 2 SCR 1085 Hussainara Khatoon I v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, (1979) 3 SCR 532,537 ; Hussainara Khatoon II v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, (1980) 1 SCC 81: Sunil Batra II v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 2 SCR 557 Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SCR 913, 921-922: Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1980) 3 SCR 1338, 1356 ); and Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 2 SCR 516, 523- 524 ).”The petitioner is aggrieved that the administration has made a mockery of well established Supreme Court case laws, given the facts and circumstances of the case.

22) The petitioner submits that In para 57of Olga Tellis judgement supra, the supreme court held-“ 57.We have referred to the assurances given by the State Government in its pleadings here which. we repeat, must be made good.” The proposed petitioner requests respondent no.1 to 5 to ensure that the assurances given by the State Government last year to amend the educational acts as per high court and supreme court decisions to incorporate necessary minority autonomy provisions be implemented at he earliest, and that in next hearing of the case before the honourable high court the govt. pleader assure the court of a time bound frame to bring in the assurances, and to regularize the appointments with retrospective effect in accordance to supreme court decisions quoted in this petition, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate forum for contempt of Supreme court orders by Respondents 1 to 5 accordingly.

23 ) The general perception among the students, ex-students, the management and parents and the public, is that the school has suffered because powerful vested interests were hell bent to teach them a lesson for not succumbing to the pressure tactics of a disgruntled parent whose child had to repeat a year for not meeting requisite academic grades , by all means, by brazen display of arrogant power, in this regard the proposed petitioner reminds the respondents of binding supreme court guideline-“ It is well settled that fairness is a rule to ensure that vast power in the modern state is not abused but properly exercised. The state power must be used for proper and not improper purposes [1990(2) SCC-48- M/s. M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd v/s State of Bihar & Others]

PRAYER OF PROPOSED PETITIONER

A) The Respondents immediately Amend the Requisite provisions Of MEPS rules/ACT 1977 /1981 in accordance with Article 30 of the Constitution and Binding Supreme court Judgements, and as promised last year by the state government just before the winter session of the state Vidhan Sabha

B) The appointments Of all Principals/teachers/ staff be regularized immediately with Retrospective effect and their dues settled immediately, in accordance to article 19 and 21 of the constitution in case of St. Marys High School case and all other similar cases. C) The respondent no.1 should, as topmost bureaucrat of the state, acting on behalf of the CM and the cabinet, direct concerned officials to take appropriate remedial action to uphold the constitution of india and various mandates of the supreme court as highlighted in this petition. The Education department should also revoke the derecognition order, since it is ultra vires of the Constitution of India, as well as umpteen Supreme Court Orders. D) The respondent no.1, as topmost bureaucrat of the state, acting on behalf of the CM and the cabinet, should take adequate steps to ensure early resolution of the matter, by directing the govt pleader to file an affidavit before the honourable high court, as to how they propose to amicably resolve the issue and reassure sentiments of minorities and protection of their institutions as guaranteed by the Constitution and supreme court, ,and should put in place a mechanism in place to ensure that arbitrary, power misuse as in St. Marys SSC case of the state administration is not emulated in near future JAI HIND-JAI MAHARASHTRA-MUMBAI MERI JAAN Signed –original copy post

(STEVEN. L. D’SOUZA) PROPOSED PETITIONER –IN-PERSON.

VERIFICATION

I, Shri Steven Lawrence D’ Souza, , Indian Christian, aged about 49, son of Shri Lawrence Francis D’Souza, hereby solemnly affirm on oath that the contents of this Legal Notice to Respondents No.1 to 5, is true and legally correct and sustainable to the best of my knowledge , belief and information as obtained . from the records and testimony of the students, parents, ex-students, teachers and management and that this legal notice as also proposed writ petition for public interest litigation , is with a view to further the public interest, and alleviate the misgivings and apprehensions of of my community and society and especially the present students of my alma mater, St Marys SSC, Nesbit Road, Mazagaon. Mumbai 400010

Solemnly declared aforesaid at Mumbai, on 16th day of September, 2011 Signed original copy sent by post (STEVEN D’SOUZA-IRS -Retd) 103, Karan A, Vishal Nagar, Mithchowki, Malad Marve Rd, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064 Mobile: 9870285998 / 9820377203

Copy to Honourable Chief Justice Of Bombay High Court , in compliance of Instructions to all PIL applicants to exhaust all available remedies, with a request to please place it on record/give instructions to govt counsel in case filed by the school, to take appropriate remedial action if possible.