Madras High Court
Annai Sellammal Matriculation School vs The Director Of Matriculation Schools on 21 December, 2017
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21-12-2017
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
W.P.No.33436 of 2017
and
W.M.P.No.36929 of 2017
Annai Sellammal Matriculation School,
situated at No.226, Salem Main Road,
Komarapalayam,
Tiruchengode Taluk,
Namakkal District 638 183
Represented by its Correspondent
namely Ve.Radhakrishnan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director of Matriculation Schools,
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Chennai 600 006
2.The Join Director of Matriculation Schools,
DPI Campus,
College Road, Chennai 600 006
3.Inspector of Matriculation Schools,
Chief Educational Office Complex,
Erode 638 001.
4.The Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal District.
5.The Divisional Revenue Officer,
Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Komorapalayam, Namakkal District.
7.J.K.A.Kumararajah,
S/o.Late.J.K.K.Angappa Chettiar,
No.9, Saraswathi Apartment,
Ramakrishna Road,
Hasthampatti, Salem. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to proceedings of 2nd respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.3433/Aa1/Aa5/2015 dated 13.11.2017 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to renew the recognition granted for running petitioner school with class L.K.G to X standard.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Praksam
For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappiah,
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner school has challenged the recommendations of the Joint Director of Tamil Nadu Matriculation School by which many shortcomings have been noted and recommendations have been made to the authorities to take appropriate action based on the recommendations.
2. The petitioner school is being run in a rented premises belonging to the 7th respondent after entering into an agreement on 13.06.2007. The nursery and primary school was started in the year 2008. After verifying necessary documents, the respondent granted permission to start classes from 1st standard to 8th standard from 10.09.2007 to 15.09.2010. Subsequently, based on the inspection report submitted by the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent granted recognition on 20.09.2012 to the petitioner school from LKG to VIII standard. In the year 2010, the petitioner applied for renewal of recognition for the petitioner school with required documents and after scrutinising of the documents, renewal of recognition for the years 2010 to 2014 was granted. For upgrading the school, in the year 2011, the petitioner sent a proposal seeking permission to start 11th and 12th standards. The 3rd respondent inspected the school and the petitioner's proposal was sent to the 1st respondent. On 20.06.2013, the 1st respondent granted permission for starting 11th standard for the academic year 2012-2013 and 12th standard for the academic year 2013-2014.
3. Thereafter, trouble started between the petitioner and the 7th respondent landlord and therefore, a suit in O.S.No.31/2015 was filed by the 7th respondent against the petitioner as well as against his father seeking to declare that the rental deed executed by the 7th respondent's father in favour of the petitioner as null and void. The said proceedings is pending before the Civil Court. Complaints were filed by the 7th respondent against the petitioner school stating that there is no proper infrastructure. At the intervention of the 7th respondent, after enquiry, the petitioner's application for renewal of building licence certificate was rejected, since the O.S.No.31/2015 was pending before the Civil Court. There are other proceedings also. The petitioner rectified the deficiencies and filed additional documents as called upon to be produced by the 3rd respondent in proceedings dated 26.04.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Revenue Officer, the 5th respondent against the order passed by the 6th respondent. The 5th respondent, Divisional Revenue Officer directed the Thasildar concerned to submit a report regarding renewal of building licence to the petitioner school. Based on the report of the 6th respondent dated 17.05.2017, the 5th respondent passed an order on 07.06.2017 stating that since civil suits are pending before the Court, based on the result of the said suits, the parties can seek appropriate remedy.
4. Based on the 7th respondent's complaint, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 18.05.2017 indicated certain deficiencies in the school and raised some queries to be answered by the petitioner school. The petitioner school thereafter rectified the defects and submitted a compliance report on 30.05.2017. The petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No.22793/2017, in which this Court directed the 3rd respondent to make inspection of the petitioner school and thereafter pass appropriate orders and file a report before this Court. Pursuant to that, the first respondent formed an enquiry committee headed by the 4th respondent and directed him to submit a report regarding allegations of the 7th respondent about the petitioner school by his proceedings dated 03.08.2017. The 4th respondent has also submitted the report on 20.09.2017 to the 1st and 2nd respondents. The 4th respondent recommended to the 1st and 2nd respondents to take action against the petitioner school and thereafter, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 13.11.2017 and thereby issued a statutory notice under Rule 13(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Right to Tamil Nadu Children Free and Compulsory Education Rules to the petitioner school. The said order is being challenged before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that only because of the enmity between the 7th respondent and the petitioner, false allegations have been made. Moreover, this Court had already in W.P.No.22793 of 2017 directed the 3rd respondent to make inspection. However, based on the allegation of the 7th respondent, the 1st respondent formed an enquiry committee headed by the 4th respondent, who recommended to the 1st and 2nd respondents to take action, contrary to the facts, though all the infrastructures were available. The committee has falsely given a report which has been acted upon by the 2nd respondent and therefore, he seeks for quashing of the order.
6. Heard Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader.
7. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent would reveal that it is only a communication enclosing the recommendations of the 4th respondent and to take action. Now, the recommendation has been considered by the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has only issued notice giving all those details. It is only a showcause notice. As evident from the impugned order, the shortcomings or deficiencies in infrastructure have been given and the petitioner is required to give reply or compliance report by pointing out that all the deficiencies have been complied with. The last two paragraphs are extracted as follows:
vdnt. gs;spj; jhshsUf;F nkYk; xU tha;g;g[ tH';Fk; Kfj;jhd; jkpH;ehL FHe;ijfSf;fhd ,ytr kw;Wk; fl;lhaf; fy;tp chpik tpjpfs;. 2011. tpjp vz;/13(1)(b) ,d;;go fhuzk; fhl;Lk; rl;g;g g{h;t mwptpf;if rhh;g[ bra;ag;gLfpwJ/ khtl;lf; FGtpd; Ma;twpf;if kw;Wk; bghJg;gzpj;Jiw braw;bghwpahshpd; mwpf;if Mfpatw;wpd; efy; ,j;Jld; ,izj;J mDg;gg;gLfpwJ/ nkw;go mwpf;iffspy; Rl;of;fhl;lg;gl;Ls;s FiwghLfis epth;j;jpbra;J mjw;fhd mwpf;ifapid ,r;bray;Kiwfs; fpilf;fg;bgw;w xU khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; fPnH xg;gkpl;Ls;stUf;F mDg;gpitf;fj; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s fhyj;jpw;Fs; tpsf;fk; VJk; bgwg;gltpy;iy vdpy;. TWtjw;F Vjk; ,y;iy vdf; fUjp ,Ug;gpy; cs;s Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; bjhlh; eltof;if nkw;bfhs;sg;gLk; vdj; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ It has been stated, if any reply is received appropriate order will be passed and therefore, the petitioner has got an alternate remedy to reply to the notice and to convince the authorities. If by way of reply, the petitioner is able to convince the second respondent, there is a chance for dropping of the proceedings itself. When such is the position, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition. Hence the writ petition fails and same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
21.12.2017 sai To
1.The Director of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006
2.The Join Director of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006
3.Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Chief Educational Office Complex, Erode 638 001.
4.The Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal District.
5.The Divisional Revenue Officer, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.
6.The Tashildar, Komorapalayam, Namakkal District.
7.J.K.A.Kumararajah, S/o.Late.J.K.K.Angappa Chettiar, No.9, Saraswathi Apartment, Ramakrishna Road, Hasthampatti, Salem.
N.KIRUBAKARAN,J sai W.P.No.33436 of 2017 Dated:21.12.2017