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

2006 Supreme(Mad) 2251

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
M. Andiappan
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Chennai & Others
W.P.(MD) No. 1622 of 2006 and W.P.M.P. No. 1800 of 2006
Decided On : 01-09-2006

Advocates Appeared:
A. Sankarasubramanian, for Petitioner.
Pala Ramasamy, Special Government Pleader, for Respondents 1 to 6 and M. Joseph Thatheus Jerome, for Respondent 7.

No permission is required to be obtained by any minority, to establish and administer any private school.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act (XXIX of 1974), Sec. 9, Section 31(l)(a) read with Rule 22 of Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition & Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977 - SItus of school - No permission is required to be obtained by any minority, to establish and administer any private school - Minorities have right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

       

Judgment :

Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 1 to 6 not to grant any permission to the 7th respondent for shifting the school from the 9th ward to the first ward in Sivagiri Municipality, Tirunelveli District.

2. Petitioner is the Secretary and Correspondent of the Andiappa Middle School in the first ward of Puliangudi Municipality. The petitioners school is having classes 1 to 8. The 7th respondent school is having standards 1 to 10, which was originally started as a primary school. Classes 1 to 8 are aided by the Government and classes 9 and 10 are functioning under self-financing scheme. According to the petitioner, the 7th respondent is trying to shift its school to the 1st ward of Puliangudi Municipality, where the petitioner school is functioning and the 7th respondent is putting up new construction without the approval of the plan from the Municipality. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the 7th respondent school is shifted to the first ward, it will be in violation of the rules and regulations and the same will be very close to the petitioners existing school.

3. The 7th respondent filed a counter affidavit and contended that it is a Christian Religious Minority Institution coming under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, declared by the competent Civil Court in decree andjudgment dated 25.7.1981 in O.S. No. 80 of 1980. The school was established in the year 1919 as an Elementary School and was upgraded as Middle School in 1965 and further upgraded as High School in the year 1993. The High School sections are granted recognition, but without aid. It is stated that the 7th respondent school is securing 100% results in the SSLC examinations from the inception of the High School sections. It is also stated that due to the increase in strength, the school has to be bifurcated and therefore further buildings were constructed with the approved plan and also complying with the norms. The bifurcated school with standards 6 to 10 is located at Ward No. 1 at North Car Street, Puliangudi, which is just 700 metres away from the existing premises. The 7th respondent also states that No Objection Certificate from 12 schools in and around Puliangudi including the non-minority high schools are obtained and the writ petitioner alone is raising objection with mala fide intention against the minority institution. It is also stated that the 7th respondent school being a minority school, is exempted from getting permission for its establishment under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulations Act and the school being a minority institution, No Objection Certificate from any authority or school is not required. The petitioner, who is administering a rival school has no locus standi to file this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the authorities are bound to look into the rules and regulations and they shall not grant permission to the 7th respondent for shifting the school to the first ward of the Puliangudi Municipality.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent, apart from arguing the matter on merits, raised a preliminary issue as to whether the petitioner has got locus standi to maintain the writ petition. The learned counsel in support of his objection, cited a judgment of this Court in Hindu Harijan Elementary School, Vadanaththampatti Village v. Secretary to Government, Education, Science and Technology Department, Chennai Hindu Harijan Elementary School, Vadanaththampatti Village v. Secretary to Government, Education, Science and Technology Department, Chennai Hindu Harijan Elementary School, Vadanaththampatti Village v. Secretary to Government, Education, Science and Technology Department, Chennai (1999) 1 MLJ 468.

6. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels appearing on both sides.

7. In the judgment in Hindu Harijan Elementary School, Vadanaththampatti Village v. Secretary to Government, Education, Scien

























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
whatsapp-icon Back to top