Muhammad Daim Khan Vs. the Collector of Moradabad - Court Judgment
|Court||Allahabad High Court|
|Judge||Pearson and ;Spankie, JJ.|
|Appellant||Muhammad Daim Khan|
|Respondent||The Collector of Moradabad|
.....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.....pearson, j.1. in our opinion the ground of appeal is valid and must be allowed. the bombay high court's decision in the case of ganpat putaya v. the collector of kanara i.l.r. 1 bom. 7 appears to be applicable in the present case. the principle that the government takes precedence of all other creditors is not liable to an exception in the case of lien-holders. we decree the appeal with costs, and, reversing the lower appellate court's decree, restore that of the court of first instance.
1. In our opinion the ground of appeal is valid and must be allowed. The Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Ganpat Putaya v. The Collector of Kanara I.L.R. 1 Bom. 7 appears to be applicable in the present case. The principle that the Government takes precedence of all other creditors is not liable to an exception in the case of lien-holders. We decree the appeal with costs, and, reversing the lower Appellate Court's decree, restore that of the Court of First Instance.