Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Syed Hyder Hussaini vs Secy., Education Dept. 4 Ors. on 17 June, 2019
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION (pil) No.3 of 2017
ORDER:{Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar}
1. The present writ petition came to be filed in the nature of public interest litigation challenging the inaction of respondents Nos.1 to 4 against the 5th respondent in pursuance of the representations of the petitioner dated 24.11.2014, 11.4.2015, 26.12.2014, 22.5.2015, 10.09.2015 and 26.12.2015.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent constructed a multi storied building on old building, which is not useful for human habitation, and is running a school without providing any facilities to the students, such as class rooms, open space, fans and play ground. It is stated that the school is being run without proper adequate sanitary facilities for children and staff separately for boys and girls and that there is no drinking water facility and ventilation as prescribed under the Rules of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of School under Private Management), Rule 1993. It is further stated that the building is likely to collapse and despite several representations made by the petitioner, the authorities have not taken any action. Since the life of the school children is at risk, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. A counter-affidavit came to be filed by the 4th respondent- Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool City, denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that the representations dated 11.4.2015 and 2 HACJ & MSM,J WP (pil) No.3/2017 26.12.2015 were addressed to the 4th respondent-Corporation, and the other representations were sent to the Town Planning Section, with which the 4th respondent has no connection. Immediately after receipt of a copy of the writ petition, the 4th respondent directed the authorities of the Town Planning Section to submit the connected records along with a report of the concerned Officer relating to the subject matter. As per the said direction, the concerned Town Planning Supervisor submitted a report stating that he received two representations dated 26.12.2014 and 11.4.2016, sent by the writ petitioner from the concerned Town Planning Section clerk on 3.3.2017; inspected the school building on 7.3.2017; observed the constructions of the Bharath English Medium School building situated in D.No.22-68, Sagmandi, Kurnool; examined the 5th respondent i.e., owner of the said building. According to him, the School building contains ground and 3 other upper floors (G+3); the owners of the building submitted their building application dated 30.12.2015 for regularization of their building under BPS scheme which was regularised under the Building Penalisation scheme by the Municipal Corporation vide proceedings BPS/KUR/MO/98088715 dated 21.11.2016 as per G.O.Ms.No.128 MA & UD Department, dated 22.5.2015 and the owners produced the structural soundness and occupancy certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Kurnool, dated 11.1.2016 stating that the said school is constructed with stone masonry, RCC roof slab, fully ventilated and that the School Management has provided grills for all the floors for safety of the school children. It is stated that the authorities of Education Department recognised their institution and granted permission to run the said school as the owners are maintaining the said school by providing all sanitary facilities to the students in the school in a better 3 HACJ & MSM,J WP (pil) No.3/2017 way. The Town Planning Supervisor enclosed the relevant documents and photos obtained from the owners of the school building to his report. In view of the above, it is pleaded that the grievance of the petitioner in the representations was redressed and therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. The 5th respondent filed separate counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that he established the school with an intention to provide quality education to the poor and needy people and that the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are false. It is stated by the 5th respondent that the present writ petition in the form of public interest litigation came to be filed only to settle the following issues between him and his family members and the son of the petitioner, which are as under:
"A. It is submitted that the son of the petitioner i.e., Mr. Syed Ilyas Hussain was appointed as Mutawali of Wakf Institution namely, Masjid- e-Maroof Peer and Dargah situated at Sagmandi, Kurnool District, in the year 2006. On coming to know that the said Mr. Syed Ilyas Hussain has misappropriated the Wakf funds and misusing the wakf property, my brother i.e., Mukthar Ahmed along with locality people gave a complaint dated 24.3.2014 to the wakf board bringing to their notice about the misappropriation acts of the Said Mutawalli and requested to take appropriate action against him. Considering the aforesaid complaint, the Inspector Auditor addressed a letter dated 24.5.2014 to the Wakf Board stating that the said Mutawalli is not producing accounts and is permanently residing at Hyderabad and requested to take action against him. In fact the Wakf Board suspended the Mutawali vide proceedings dated 27.8.2014, and addressed a letter to the I Town Police Station to register FIR against him under Section 52(A) of Wakf Amendment Act, 2013. As the police did not choose to take action on the complaint, again my brother submitted a representation dated 3.12.2014 to the Wakf Board with a request to expedite the action against him and Wakf Board addressed a letter dated 5.12.2014 to the police with a request to expedite the action. As the police did not choose to take action to register FIR against the Mutawalli, my brother 4 HACJ & MSM,J WP (pil) No.3/2017 approached this Hon'ble Court by filing a writ petit5on in W.P. No.14984 of 2016 seeking direction to the police to register FIR against Mutawalli. The aforesaid writ petition is still pending on the file of the Hon'ble Court.
B. It is submitted that on coming to know that the said Syed Ilyas Husain is trying to influence upon the Wakf Board to reinstate himself as Mutawalli of the Wakf institution, during the pending enquiry against him, my brother approached this Hon'ble Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.15429 of 2016 challenging the action of the Wakf Board in taking steps to appoint Syed Ilyas Hussain as Mutawalli. The aforesaid writ petition is also pending.
C. It is submitted that the said Syed Ilyas Hussain got re-instated by the Wakf Board as Mutawalli of the Wakf Institution by proceedings dated 6.8.2016. The re-instatement order was challenged by my brother in W.P.No.29466 of 2016, the said W.P. is also pending on the file of this Hon'ble Court.
D. It is submitted that the writ petitioner along with his wife filed a suit in O.S.N0.453/14 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool against Mukhtar Ahmed (who has given a complaint dated 24.3.14 against the petitioner's son, who is none else than my brother) and others for grant of injunction. The aforesaid suit was filed in October, 2014 and the said suit is pending.
E. It is submitted that the son of the petitioner got re-instated as Mutawalli of subject Wakf Institution and started threatening to evict me forcibly from the peaceful possession, then, I have approached the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge by filing a suit in O.S.No.666 of 2016 seeking ad-interim injunction against the son of the petitioner. In the aforesaid suit the Hon'ble Lower Court was pleased to grant ad- interim injunction by an order dated 29.9.2016 passed in I.A.No.1113 of 2016 in O.S.No.666 of 2016."
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the 5th respondent, constructed the building by demolishing the old structures, and is running the school by providing all facilities after obtaining permission from the competent authorities.
5. Perusal of the documents enclosed to the counter-affidavit filed by the 5th respondent would show that all necessary permissions were obtained. The counter filed by the 4th respondent indicates that 5 HACJ & MSM,J WP (pil) No.3/2017 in pursuant to the representations made by the petitioner, inspection was conducted. As per the report of the Town Planning Supervisor, the 5th respondent is following all the norms to maintain the school, and all sanitary facilities are being provided to the students in a better way. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that despite several representations, the authorities had not taken any action is not sustainable. The material available on record would indicate that due to disputes between the petitioner and the 5th respondent as referred to above, the petitioner must have filed the present writ petition. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any merits in this writ petition.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed.
___________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ ________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Dated: 17.06.2019 Nn 6 HACJ & MSM,J WP (pil) No.3/2017 THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION (pil) No.3 of 2017 (Order delivered by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumar} Dated: 17.6.2019 Nn