Madras High Court
Redeem vs The Principal Secretary To on 15 April, 2016
Bench: S.Manikumar, S.S.Sundar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.(MD).No.7301 of 2016 &
W.M.P.(MD).No.6156 of 2016
REDEEM,
rep.by its Secretary,
M.James Anbu Nathan,
36,Arapalayam Main Road,
Madurai District. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Principal Secretary to
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of School Education,
Fort.St.George, Chennai-09.
2.The District Collector,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Director of School Education
(Matriculation Schools),
O/o.Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, Chennai.
4.The Joint Director of School Education,
O/o.Joint Director of Education,
DPI Campus, Chennai.
5.The District Educational Officer,
O/o.The District Educational Officer,
Dindigul District.
6.The Director of Matriculation Schools,
O/o.The Director of Matriculation Schools,
DPI Campus, Chennai.
7.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools,
O/o.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools,
Palani Road, Dindigul.
8.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ananthagiri, Kodaikanal,
Dindigul District.
9.The Tashildar,
O/o.The Tashildar,
Kodaikanal.
10.The Chairman,
Kodaikanal Municipality,
Kodaikanal,
Dindigul District.
11.St.Thomas Matriculation School,
rep.by its Correspondent,
Mr.G.S.M.Justin Prakasam,
Naidu Puram, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
... Respondents
This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 10 to
initiate appropriate action against the unauthorized and unrecognized school
namely St.Thomas Matriculation Hr. Sec. School Naidupuram Kodaikanal
Dindigul District being run from unsafe school buildings which do not conform
to the minimum requirement stipulated for establishing schools under the
provisions of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools Tamil Nadu.
!For petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For respondents : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
Spl.Govt.Pleader
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR,J.) This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 10 to initiate appropriate action against the unauthorized and unrecognized school, namely St.Thomas Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Naidupuram Kodaikanal, Dindigul District, being run in unsafe school buildings, which do not conform to the minimum requirement, stipulated for establishing schools under the provisions of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools Tamil Nadu.
2. The petitioner has sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 way back in the year 2010. On the strength of the information received by him in the year 2010, the present Writ Petition has been filed. When this Court posed a question to the petitioner as to whether has he made any attempt to get the details about the present position and as to whether the 11th respondent School has recognition / renewal, as on today, to which any materials are enclosed in the typed set of papers or submitted before this Court, the answer is a clear 'No'. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that the difference between the averments made in Writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that of civil proceedings are totally different. It is apt to mention the following judgment for the case on hand:-
?4. Explaining the distinction between the pleading in a writ petition and in a suit, the Supreme Court in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 1988 (4) SCC 534, at Paragraph 13, held as follows:
?When a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. In this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statements, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.? (emphasis supplied)
3. Mere averments do not test the stand of proof. Admittedly, no materials are placed to substantiate the case of the petitioner. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition. Accordingly, we permit him to withdraw this Writ Petition.
4. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai-09.
2.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Director of School Education (Matriculation Schools), O/o.Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai.
4.The Joint Director of School Education, O/o.Joint Director of Education, DPI Campus, Chennai.
5.The District Educational Officer, O/o.The District Educational Officer, Dindigul District.
6.The Director of Matriculation Schools, O/o.The Director of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, Chennai.
7.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools, O/o.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Palani Road, Dindigul.
8.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthagiri, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
9.The Tashildar, O/o.The Tashildar,Kodaikanal.
10.The Chairman, Kodaikanal Municipality, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District..