Non-submission of a registered rent agreement is a curable defect in recognition proceedings.

The petitioner-society sought renewal/recognition for Classes IX–XII for the academic session 2026–2027.

Its application was rejected because, at the time of filing, it had not submitted the registered rent agreement for the school premises as required under Rule 5(2)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Recognition of Secondary and Higher Secondary School Rules, 2017.

Although the petitioner later produced a registered rent agreement dated 28 March 2026 with its second appeal, the second appellate authority rejected the matter without granting an opportunity of hearing or considering that document.

The petitioner challenged the rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the omission was curable and that the subsequently filed agreement ought to have been considered.

1. Whether the failure to submit a registered rent agreement along with the initial recognition application constituted a non-curable defect requiring rejection of the application.

2. Whether the second appellate authority acted unlawfully by rejecting the matter without considering the registered rent agreement dated 28 March 2026 and without providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Court applied Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognition of Secondary and Higher Secondary School Rules, 2017, which prescribes the parameters for recognition.

In particular, Rule 5(2)(c) mandates that, where the school operates from rented land or a rented building, the relevant documents must be legally registered and an attested copy must be attached to the application form.

The Court further applied the principle that non-compliance with such a documentary requirement may constitute a curable defect where the requisite document is subsequently produced and is capable of consideration by the competent authority.

Rule 5(2)(c) made submission of a duly registered rent agreement mandatory for recognition of a school operating from rented premises.

The petitioner admittedly did not submit the agreement with the original application and also failed to produce it within the extended period granted by the competent authority.

However, the registered agreement dated 28 March 2026 was produced at the second appellate stage and related to the premises in which the school was being operated.

The Court treated the initial non-submission as a curable procedural defect rather than an incurable failure of eligibility.

Consequently, the second appellate authority’s failure to consider the subsequently filed agreement, coupled with the absence of an opportunity of hearing, rendered its order legally vulnerable.

The matter was remitted to the second appellate authority for fresh consideration, specifically directing it to consider the registered rent agreement dated 28 March 2026 and, if applicable under the procedure, provide the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.

The petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.