Madras High Court
Kayalpattinam Arumuganeri Higher ... vs The Secretary on 10 August, 2016
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.08.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
W.P(MD)No.14141 of 2016
and
W.M.P(MD)No.10510 of 2016
Kayalpattinam Arumuganeri Higher Secondary School,
represented by its Secretary Mr.K.T.J.Prakash,
Arumuganeri,
Peyanvilai,
Thoothukudi District. ..Petitioner
Vs
1.The Secretary,
represented by State Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Secretariat,
St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Directorate of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai-6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Trichy ? 620 008,
Trichy District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Office of the District Educational Office,
Si.Va.Higher Secondary School Complex,
Thoothukudi Town,
Thoothukudi District.
5.Mr.Narasimman
District Educational Officer,
Si.Va.Higher Secondary School Complex,
Thoothukudi Town,
Thoothukudi District. ..Respondents.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records
relating to the impugned order passed by the Fourth Respondent in which
direct payment was ordered by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4060/A1/2016, dated
25.7.2016 and to quash the same as illegal.
!For Petitioner :Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
^For Respondents :Mr.V.Muruganandam
Addl.Govt.Pleader
:ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3.According to the Petitioner/School, it is a private aided Higher Secondary School and is receiving grant in aid from the State Government. It is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder. A society was formed in the name and style of 'Kayalpattinam Arumuganeri Kalvi Sangam' and the same was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and its Registration No. is 3/1984 and now automatically comes under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The main object of the society is to impart education especially to the downtrodden people.
4.The main grievance of the Petitioner/School is that the impugned order, dated 25.7.2016 passed by the Fourth Respondent in and by which direct payment order was passed was unjust, unreasonable and highly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects a plea that as far as the right of the Fourth Respondent/The District Educational Officer, Thoothukudi Town, Thoothukudi District is concerned, only if there is a dispute with regard to the management or special circumstances warranting direct payment, the same could be ordered and in fact, there is no whisper in the impugned order that under what special circumstances the Petitioner/School was brought under direct payment.
6.In response,the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents No.1 to 5 contends that as per Rule 19 Annexure-III, Sub-Rule (3) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools(Regulation) Rules 1974, does not expressly visualize the issuance of notice to the Petitioner/School and in the absence of the same, the Fourth Respondent had rightly passed the impugned order by taking note of all relevant and attendant facts and circumstances of the present case in a complete and comprehensive manner. In short, it is projected on the side of the Respondents No.1 to 4 that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, dated 25.7.2016 passed by the Fourth Respondent.
7.The Petitioner/School was not provided with an opportunity to explain or to raise their objections in writing as to why direct payment of grant in aid should not be ordered. Without issuing notice to the Petitioner/School and also not receiving its objections/representation, it appears that the Fourth Respondent had passed the impugned order and in this regard, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order of the Fourth Respondent suffers from legal infirmity in the eye of Law namely, not following the principles of natural justice. It is true that the principles of natural justice are not the said rules embodied in a particular statute. After all the observance of principles of natural justice, is to secure the ends of justice and put it negatively, to avoid miscarriage of justice.
8.A mere perusal of the Rule 19 Annexure-III Sub-Rule (3) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools(Regulation)Rules, 1974 although does not expressly speaks of the issuance of prior notice to the Petitioner/School at the time of passing the impugned order, yet, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner/School should have been provided with an opportunity to submit its remark/representation in regard to the aspect of direct payment of grant in aid and in fact, by observing the principles of natural justice, the Petitioner/School ought to have been provided with an opportunity, in the considered opinion of this Court. The non-observance of the principles of natural justice, in the instant case, has lead to the passing of the impugned order by the Fourth Respondent, in the considered opinion of this Court, is per se not legal.
9.Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the impugned order, dated 25.7.2016 passed by the Fourth Respondent is in negation of principles of natural justice, namely by not issuing notice to the Petitioner/School before ordering direct payment of grant in aid to the Petitioner school, this Court is per-forced to set aside the impugned order and allow the Writ Petition to prevent the aberration of justice and in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds.
10.In the result,Writ Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the Fourth Respondent in Na.Ka.No.4060/A1/2016, dated 25.7.2016 is hereby set aside by this Court, for the reasons assigned in the Writ Petition. The Fourth Respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in the subject-matter in issue of course with an open, free and unbiased mind and that too, in a dispassionate manner(of course after providing adequate/enough opportunity to the Petitioner and others concerned, if any by adhering to the principles of natural justice in true letter and spirit) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Petitioner/School is directed to lend its assistance and co-operation to the Fourth Respondent, in passing the order afresh in the subject-matter in issue, within the time frame fixed by this Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The Secretary, State Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education, Office of the Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Trichy ? 620 008, Trichy District.
4.The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Office, Si.Va.Higher Secondary School Complex, Thoothukudi Town, Thoothukudi District.
5.Mr.Narasimman District Educational Officer, Si.Va.Higher Secondary School Complex, Thoothukudi Town, Thoothukudi District..