The State Government has the power to nominate an officer to discharge the functions of the educational agency under S. 53A(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, pending the decision of the civil court on the dispute or the making of an interim arrangement by the court for running the school.

K.A. SWAMI, C.J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 22nd June, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition 9159 of 1993. As the respondents 1 to 4 are represented through the Special Government Pleader and respondents 5 and 6 are also represented through a counsel and the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.

2. In the Writ Petition, the petitioners sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to act and take necessary proceedings under S. 53 A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and run the affairs of the 5th respondent till the Managing Committee and the School Committee take over.

3. It is the case of the petitioners/appellants that the 5th respondent Lakshmi Harihara High School is run by an educational agency known as Raja Educational Trust at Madras. The further case of the petitioners is that there is a dispute relating to the educational agency, in as much as the Committee of educational agency has become defunct and the dispute has been raised by way of suit before the District Munsifs Court, Sengottah, in O.S. No. 91 of 1992, that no interim order is passed in the suit, therefore respondents 1 to 4 must act under sub-S. (2) of S. 53A of the Act and nominate an officer to discharge the functions of the Educational Agency.

4. Learned single judge has rejected the Writ Petition on the ground that it is open to the State Government to nominate an officer to discharge the functions of the Educational Agency, but, as the discretion is vested in the State Government no mandamus need be issued.

5. S. 53A of the Act reads thus.-

“53-A. Settlement of dispute as to Educational Agency, etc. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in S. 53, whenever any dispute as to the constitution of any educational agency, or as to whether any person or body of persons, in an educational agency, in relation to any private school, or as to the Constitution of a school committee, or as to the appointment of secretary of the school committee arises, such dispute may be referred by the persons interested or by the competent authority to the civil court having jurisdiction for its decision.

(2) Pending the decision of the Civil court on a dispute referred to it under sub-Section (1) or the making of an interim arrangement by the Civil Court for the running of the private school, the Government may nominate and officer to discharge the functions of the educational agency, the School Committee or the Secretary, as the case may be, in relation to the Private school concerned:”

We are now concerned with sub-Section (2) of S. 53-A. It is not disputed that there is a dispute relating to the Constitution of educational agency, pending before the civil court. As per sub-Section (2) of S. 53-A, the State Government is entitled to exercise the power and nominate an officer to discharge the functions of the educational agency, pending the decision of the civil court on a dispute referred to it under sub-Section (1) or making an interim order by the Civil Court for the running of a private school. Sub-Section (1) enables a person interested in the educational institution to refer the dispute to a Civil Court having jurisdiction over the institution relating to the constitution of any educational agency or as to whether any person or body of persons is an educational agency in relation to any private school or as to the constitution of a School Committee or as to the appointment of Secretary of the School Committee. In the instant case, the dispute relates to constitution of educational agency in respect of which the suit has been filed. It is no doubt that the context in which the expression ‘may” in sub-Section (2) of S. 53-A of the Act, it is coupled with duty and it has to be exercised when there is a dispute relating to the matters touching the very administration of a private