The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement to replace tiled roofs with RCC roofs in school buildings was not a mandatory condition as per the government order, and the school was directed to replace the roof in a phased manner.

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of this Court in W.P.No.725 of 2017 dated 03.02.2017.)

The appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order in W.P.No.725 of 2017 dated 03.02.2017.

2. The said writ petition was filed challenging proceedings of the third respondent dated 16.12.2016. By the said proceedings, the third respondent directed that the tiled roof of the appellant should be replaced by RCC roof in a phased manner. The appellant came before the writ Court contending that if the Government sanction funds, they will be able to do so. The learned writ Court by the impugned order directed that the appellant/institution should convert the tiled roof to RCC roof and granted time till 31.12.2017, stating that it is an impossibility to convert, the appellants are before us by way of this writ appeal.

3. Before filing this appeal, the appellants moved to the learned writ Court by way of Review petition. However, the learned writ Court was of the view that review is not maintainable as there was no error in the order passed by the writ Court.

4. The appellant was heard for admission by the Division Bench on 09.01.2019. It noted the argument of the appellant on the condition that building with tiled roof should be replaced by RCC roof is not a mandatory requirement in terms of G.O.Ms.No.131, School Education Department dated 10.08.2006. After noting this argument, the Division Bench directed the respondent to file the necessary particulars before the Court.

5. Subsequently, we heard the matter on several days, in which we directed the learned Special Government Pleader to produce before us the list of Government Schools in the State which has got tiled roof. We are surprised to find that there are more than 1600 schools which are either partially tiled or fully tiled or with katcha roof. This statement placed before us would clearly show that the Government themselves has not treated the said condition as a mandatory condition or a compulsory requirement. It is no doubt true that the safety and security of the children, the teachers and the other workers in the school needs to be fully protected. For this reason, the Government has banned schools with thatched roofs. However, this order was not on the violation of the Government, but after having learnt from gruesome incident which occurred in Kumbhakonam and pursuant to the recommendation of One Man Commission.

6. Likewise asbestos roof should also be banned as regards of its hazardous nature. If there is no Government Order to ban asbestos roof, the Government should take steps and issue appropriate directions, so as to remove the asbestos roof and replace it by RCC or other non hazardous roofing material.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent would reiterate that tiled roof is required to be removed or replaced by RCC roof, in the light of the One Man Commission which was constituted by the State Government. It is true that there should be pakka roof in all the school buildings but that cannot be done in a day or two or in a month. This is why more than 1,600 schools are yet to replace the tiled roof by RCC roof. If the Government take steps to do arrangements, by then, a separate allocation of funds has to be made both for Government Schools and aided schools.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that Grant in Aid Code provides for grant of funds for the private schools as well as aided schools by referring to Clause 51 of the Grant in Aid Code falling in Chapter VII. However, we make it clear that steps should be taken by the appellant to replace the tiled roof by RCC roof in a phased manner in which they can approach philanthropic organizations as well as Government for allocation of funds. However, on that ground, the appellant/institution cannot be closed down.

9. With the above observations, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed in the writ pet