Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Preumalla Chinna Sundaraiah vs The State Of Ap on 22 July, 2019
Bench: T. Rajani, Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.38 of 2019
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice) There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 16.04.2019, 12.06.2019 and 03.07.2019. Same is the position even today. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter. However, as the present writ petition is filed in the form of public interest litigation, this Court has no other go but to decide the matter on merits.
2. The following relief is sought for in the present writ petition:
"... to pass an order(s) or direction(s) more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the official respondent Nos.2, 5 & 6 to conduct a joint inspection and take appropriate action against respondent No.13 college in submitting fake documents such as FDR bonds, land use certificate, land conversion certificate and other relevant documents for obtaining permission for conducting courses of B.Ed. & D.Ed. without any building, infrastructure and faculty and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. Mr. PerumallaChinnaSundaraiah, a permanent resident of JellivariPulalaCharuvu village, Racharlamandal, is the petitioner herein. The averments in the affidavit would show that respondent No.13 college is being managed by respondent No.11 society, which is also running a school, viz., respondent No.12 at the premises bearing Sy.No.433/3, 5th ward, 12th block, Kongalaveedu road in Giddaluru, Prakasam District. It is stated that respondent No.11 society, in order to obtain permission from NCTE for conducting B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses in the name and style of Sri VishwaBharathi College of Education & Teacher Training, submitted online application on 27.06.2015 to 2 NCTE showing the premises at Plot No.569/1, Giddaluru rural, Chatreddypally village and taluk, Prakasam District. Based on the said application, an inspection was conducted on 16.01.2016 at the proposed premises by two persons - G. Subramanian & G.R.Santosh Kumar - who were nominated by NCTE.The said persons gave a report stating that the said premises is in accordance with NCTE standards and that courses can be conducted. The averments further show that respondent No.11 society played fraud on the officials of NCTE, Nagarjuna University and School Education Department by submitting fake documents. The 11threspondent society, in order to obtain sanction in respect of respondent No.13 college, has shown building premises of respondent No.12 school, which is situated in Sy.No.433/3 in Giddaluru rural, Chatireddypally village and taluk, Prakasam District, which is at a different place, by playing fraud on the officials of NCTE who visited the premises. It is further stated that, in order to obtain recognition from NCTE, for B.Ed. & D.Ed., the college has to raise FDRs., for a sum of Rs.5 lakh towards Endowment Fund and Rs.7 lakh towards Reserve Fund for each of the courses amounting to Rs.24 lakh in the joint account, with the Regional Director, NCTE. It is stated that, in the present case, respondent No.11 society members forged FDRs., and submitted the same to NCTE which is illegal. It is also alleged that, on verification with bank authorities, it was found that FDRs., are fake and created.
4. Except making the aforesaid allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, we feel that petitioner was not able to make out any case. Apart from that, record discloses that persons nominated by NCTE, Southern Regional Committee, after visiting the college and by verifying the documents, viz., land use certificate, land conversion certificate and other relevant documents, came to a conclusion that the building, classrooms, infrastructural 3 and instructional facilities are adequate, based on which, NCTE permitted the college to proceed with the courses referred above. Except alleging that the FDRs., furnished to the authorities are fake, the petitioner failed to produce any material evidencing the said allegation. Things would have been different had the affidavit of any of the bank authorities been placed on record. No such effort has been made by the petitioner.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we find no ground to grant the relief prayed for.
6. The writ petition (PIL) is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending, stand closed.
________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ ________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J July 22, 2019 MRR