Point of Law : The specific objection on locus standi of petitioner to initiate Public Interest Litigation is not denied. The person prosecuting public interest litigation should not have any interest, even remotely to the cause espoused in the PIL. When specific allegations are made against the bona fides of the person prosecuting the PIL, which are not denied, at the instance of such person, Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.

ORDER :

The petitioners pray for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in directing the 4th respondent to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioners regarding opening, upgradation, bifurcation of schools under the management of 1st petitioner Society as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside the proceedings of 4th respondent in Rc.No.2614/B3/2021 dated 15.07.2021.

2. The case of petitioners is thus :

The 1st petitioner is the Educational Society and 2nd petitioner is the aided High School of 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner Society was established with five primary schools and two High Schools in Prakasam District to impart education to backward classes, weaker sections and orphans etc. The Primary High School was established in the year 1983 by 1st petitioner Society by securing necessary permissions from the Education Department. Subsequently it was upgraded to Upper Primary School w.e.f. June 1985 and classes VI and VII were started in Telugu medium. Seven SGT posts were admitted to grant-in-aid by the State Government in primary and upgraded sections vide G.O.Rt.No.8, Education Department, dated 03.01.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.411 dated 10.11.1994. From the Academic Year 2002-03 SBNRM aided upper Primary School, Komarole was upgraded as High School with permission to start VIII to X (un-aided) classes vide Memo No.8376/TS2 21/2002-1 dated 17.08.2002. The schools under the 1st petitioner Society were administered as per the directions and guidelines of the educational society. While so, in the Academic Year 2014-15 one M.Tirupathi Reddy, who was working as B.Ed. Assistant in SBNRM aided High School, Kothapalle, was removed from service after conducting enquiry on the charges of Sexual Harassment of a female teacher and a girl student of the same school. The same was the subject matter of legal proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court. Thereafter, one C.Bala Venkat Reddy, a relative of Tirupati Reddy, instituted PIL No.341/2015 before the undivided High Court of A.P. against the institutions under the management of 1st petitioner Society. A counter affidavit was filed by the petitioners in the said PIL denying the allegations. The said PIL was dismissed on 28.03.2016. However, it was left open to the Department to conduct enquiry if necessary. The 1st respondent had already conducted a detailed enquiry through its educational officers and reports were also filed into Court and therefore, the 1st respondent did not feel it necessary to further enquire into the matter. However, on instigation of certain vested interests, the ACB Department which was also arrayed as respondent in PIL, has registered FIR No.01/RCO-OGL/2018 dated 21.01.2018 under Section 154 & 157 Cr.P.C. However, no charge sheet has been filed even after the lapse of 3 ½ years after completion of investigation. The petitioners were under the bonafide impression that consequent to the sworn affidavit filed on behalf of 1st respondent in the PIL, the allegations against 1st petitioner stood concluded on the basis of enquiry conducted and reports filed into the Court in the said PIL. However, the 4th respondent in his proceedings vide Rc.No.2614/B3/2021 dated 07.07.2021 directed the management of 2nd petitioner School to attend enquiry on 10.07.2021 and keep ready all records and files of the management of schools relating to opening, upgradation and bifurcation of schools, admission of posts into grant-in-aid, Midday meals, Text Book Distribution, Uniform, Bicycle distribution. The enquiry is contemplated on the representation made by one M. Tirumala Reddy pursuance to the memo dated 21.06.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent. The copy of the said memo was not furnished by the petitioners. The representation of the said M. Tirumala Reddy contains the following allegations :

I. Though the 2nd petitioner school is unaided school the correspondent of the school with the support of the authorities running as an aided