SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
Raveendra E.M. School Rep by its Correspondent Sri Chalamcharla – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No.24280 of 2022
Decided on : 15-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri Mathukumilli Sri Vijay
For the Respondents: Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, Ld. Government Pleader for School Education and Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Kilaru Nithin Krishna, Learned Counsel

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a party must demonstrate a legally protected interest to have standing in a writ petition, emphasizing the principle of locus standi in educational disputes.

Headnote:

Education - Writ Petition - Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982; Rules, 1993 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding the establishment and recognition of schools, emphasizing compliance with procedural requirements and the concept of locus standi in educational disputes.

Fact of the Case:

The Writ Petitioners, nine schools, challenged the permission granted to the 5th Respondent School to run classes for the academic year 2022-2023, alleging violations of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act and related rules.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the 5th Respondent had complied with the necessary procedural requirements for establishing the school, including timely payment of fees, and that the Writ Petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the decision.

Issues: Whether the Writ Petitioners had the legal standing to challenge the grant of permission to the 5th Respondent School and if the official respondents violated any rules in granting such permission.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Writ Petitioners did not demonstrate any legal right infringed by the actions of the official respondents, thus lacking the necessary locus standi to maintain the writ petition.

Result: The Writ Petition was dismissed.

ORDER :

Heard Sri Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners; Sri L.V.S Nagaraju, learned Government Pleader for School Education; Sri B. Satyendra Mani Kumar, Assistant Government Pleader for School Education for the Official Respondents and Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Kilaru Nithin Krishna, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5.

2. Prayer sought in the Writ Petition is as under:

    “ ….to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of declaring the action of the official Respondents much less the action of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in allowing the 5th respondent School to run the classes for the academic year 2022-23 instead of initiating departmental and criminal proceedings against it, on extraneous consideration as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and in contravention of Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act and the Rules framed there under, Right to Education Act and against the principles of natural justice besides being unwarranted and consequently to direct the Respondent authorities to initiate action against the 5th Respondent Management as contemplated under the provisions of A.P Education Act, 1982 and issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of case”

3. The present Writ Petition is filed by about nine schools against grant of permission to the 5th Respondent Institution in running classes from Ist to VIIth standard for the academic year 2022-2023.

4. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that the Official Respondents namely Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have granted permission in favour of Respondent No.5 in violation of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools Under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 (in short Rules, 1993). These Rules were issued under G.O.Ms.No.1, Education dated 01.01.1994.

5. Sri Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has contended, by drawing the attention of this Court to the Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Rules, 1993, that by 30th October of the preceding academic year, fee of Rs.10,000/- shall be remitted for seeking permission for the following academic year. For example, if a Society is seeking permission for establishment of school for the academic year 2022-2023, fee shall be paid and Application be submitted on or before 30th November of the preceding year i.e., on or before 30.11.2021. Learned Counsel submitted that in the case of grant of permission to the Respondent No.5, the Application was made on 08.07.2022 and the permission was granted on 14.07.2022. He further submits that the Official Respondents have shown undue favour on the Respondent No.5 by giving complete go by to the Rules set out under the then 1993 Rules. It is also submitted that Section 20 of the A.P Education Act has also been given a go-by by the Official Respondents in grant of permission to the Respondent No.5.

Version of the Official Respondents:

6. Sri L.V.S Nagaraju, learned Government Pleader for School Education for the Official Respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to Para No.8 of the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Para No.8 is beneficially extracted hereunder:

    “8. Further it is submitted that the Rule 6 of GO.Ms.No.1 Edn., dated 01.01.1994

"The application seeking permission for establishment of a new school or up-gradation of the existing school shall be submitted to the competent authority on or before the 31st October of the preceding academic year, in triplicate, in form-I".

In the present case, the Correspondent of the 5th respondent institution has paid required amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the application fee for establishment of new school before 31st October of the preceding academic year i.e., on 25.10.2019 and not deviated the rule mentioned above.”

7

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top