Madras High Court
Lotus School vs The Director Of Matriculation Schools on 18 June, 2015
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.06.2015 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN WRIT PETITION (MD) No.9851 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015 Lotus School Rep. by its Correspondent Mr.S.Murugan, 103C 11/10, Papanasam Main Road, Marutham Nagar, Dana, Vicramasingapuram, Tirunelveli District-627 425 ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Director of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in NA.Ka.No.372/A4/2015 dated 09.02.2015 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to grant permission to run the petitioner's School with LKG to VIII standards without insisting for plan approval from the Department of Town and Country Planning. !For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balamohan Thambi For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandam Addl.Govt.Pleader. :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in NA.Ka.No.372/A4/2015 dated 09.02.2015, and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to run the petitioner's School with LKG to VIII standards without insisting upon plan approval from the Department of Town and Country Planning.
2. The case of the petitioner school in nutshell is as follows:
i) The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner school") is a Trust, which has acquired 83 cents of land. As the Trust decided to run a School, a building plan approval was obtained from the Vickramasingapuram Municipality in the year 2011 as required under the Tamil Nadu Building (Licensing) 1965 for construction of the school building.
ii) On submission of the application by the petitioner to the first respondent through the second respondent, orderes have been passed thereon by the first respondent on 09.02.015 returning the proposal by referring to certain deficiencies. One such deficiency noted in the order is that a plan approval has to be obtained from the Department of Town and Country Planning and the same has to be submitted. Aggrieved against the said condition imposed by the first respondent the petitioner school is before this Court seeking for the above relief since the petitioner School has already obtained such plan approval and building permission from the Executive Authority viz., the Commissioner of Vicramasingapuram Municipality.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no need to obtain approval from the Director of Town and Country Planning, as the school has already obtained plan approval and building permission from the Executive Authority viz., the Commissioner of Vicramasingapuram Municipality. He also drew the attention of this Court to the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Buildings Rules, 1997 and the relevant provisions are extracted hereunder:
?2(e) ?executive authority? means the President of the Village Panchayat 2(g) ?Public building? means any building to which the public or any class or section of the public are granted access or any building which is open to the public or any class or section of the public and includes any building -
(a) used as a
(i) Educational institution including school or college.
25.Multi-storeyed and public buildings:-
Every person intending to construct, reconstruct, add to or alter any public building other than Government building shall follow the provisions of the Multi-Storeyed and Public Building Rules, 1973 issued under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.
Provided that the Executive Authority shall not grant approval for construction, reconstruction, addition or alteration of any such building without consulting the concerned Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning.?
Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and contended that the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the competent authority in terms of the provisions stated supra, is the President of the Panchayat, who has duly granted approval in this case, the petitioner school has not violated any of the laws of the land.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent contends that in terms of the Rule 25, which has been referred to above by the petitioner, the competent authority is only the Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning. Even assuming that no approval is required from the Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, at least there should be a consultation by the authority with the concerned Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning and therefore, the act of the petitioner, in absence of such consultation, is erroneous and the relief sought for by the petitioner should not be granted. Learned Government Advocate drew the attention of this Court to G.O.(Ms) No.270 School Education (X2) Department dated 22.10.2012, wherein it has been stated as under:
?i) gs;spfspy; fl;ol tiugl mDkjp chpa mYtyhplk; bgw;w gpd;dnu fl;ol';fs; fl;lg;glntz;Lk;.?
5. To controvert the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Government Order is no way helpful to the respondents, as it merely stipulates that for construction of school building, prior approval should be obtained from the appropriate authority and in nowhere, it is mentioned that Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning is the only authority to grant permission for construction of school building. He further submits that in terms of the letter dated 09.02.2015, which is impugned herein, the contention of the respondent that no prior approval has been obtained from the Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, is not correct. In this case, only a consultation is warranted under the Rules and not the approval and the consultation is also an internal arrangement, which the petitioner is not aware of. He also submits that the Panchayat President, who is the competent authority in that area, is empowered to grant approval and it is pertinent to state here that no enquiry has been conducted against the Panchayat President till date.
6. Heard both sides.
7. From the reading of the Rules extracted supra, it is seen that the Executive Authority under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Buildings Rules, 1997, is the Village President, who is competent to grant approval for construction.
What is required is only a consultation with the concerned Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, in which the petitioner school has no role to play, since it is an internal arrangement between the Panchayat President and the Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning.
8. Admittedly, no action has been initiated against the said Panchayat President, on account of his competency under the Rules to grant such approval. That apart, the petitioner is a Matriculation school, being run within the Vicramasingapuram Municipality and the G.O.(Ms) No.270 School Education (X2) Department dated 22.10.2012 does not insist upon the building plan to be approved by the Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning. Since the executive authority, namely, Panchayat President has approved the building the plan, the act of the petitioner cannot be faulted with in any manner, more particularly, it cannot be said that it is against the provisions of law. Admittedly, the petitioner has fulfilled all the requirements and the only issue raised by the respondent that prior approval of the Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning is mandatory, cannot be acceptable, in view of the Rules extracted supra.
9. Taking note of the above, the respondents are directed not to insist upon the building to be approved by the Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning. Moreover, this issue is already covered by the decision of this Court in W.P(MD)No.20329 of 2014 dated 06.04.2015. With regard to other conditions, if any, the petitioner is directed to comply with the same and on due compliance of the requirements as required by the respondents in terms of law, appropriate decision shall be taken on it and the same be communicated to the petitioner after hearing them.
10.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
1.The Director of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli District.