https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198532 Regulatory safeguards on suspension and disciplinary action in aided linguistic minority schools were held to be valid under Article 30(1), because the right to administer does not include a right to maladminister. Section 8(4) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 applied to such schools, and the requirement to communicate an intended suspension and obtain prior approval of the Director of Education was treated as a permissible regulatory control rather than an unconstitutional interference with minority administration. Where the management only communicated the suspension and no approval was received within the statutory period, the second proviso to Section 8(4) operated and the suspension could not continue in force. en-us Wed, 15 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Feb 2018 14:46:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198532 Regulatory safeguards on suspension and disciplinary action in aided linguistic minority schools were held to be valid under Article 30(1), because the right to administer does not include a right to maladminister. Section 8(4) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 applied to such schools, and the requirement to communicate an intended suspension and obtain prior approval of the Director of Education was treated as a permissible regulatory control rather than an unconstitutional interference with minority administration. Where the management only communicated the suspension and no approval was received within the statutory period, the second proviso to Section 8(4) operated and the suspension could not continue in force. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 15 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198532