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

2020 Supreme(Mad) 739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetathipathi Jayendra Saraswathy Sankara Nursery & Primary School, Rep. by its Hon. Correspondent & Chairman School Committee Prof. V. Janakiraman - Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvarur & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 29025 of 2019 & W.M.P. No. 1539 of 2020
Decided On : 26-08-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Karthic, Senior Counsel assisted by S. Haroon Al Rasheed, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V. Annalakshmi, GA [Edn].

The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the State to act without ill will or malice, emphasizing the concept of legal malice or malice in law, and the importance of fair decision-making.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Upgradation of School - Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 and the Code of Regulation for Approved Nursery and Primary Schools. The court highlighted the legal provisions under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, which provides for the power to grant permission for upgradation of existing schools. The court also emphasized the importance of fair decision-making and the concept of legal malice or malice in law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a school seeking upgradation, challenged the rejection of its application by the 1st respondent. The petitioner had applied for upgradation as a Middle School, but the 1st respondent rejected the application citing various reasons, including non-compliance with the minimum land requirement of 3 Acres as per G.O.[2D] No.48, dated 21.07.2004. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition challenging the same Government Order, which was dismissed. The court found that the 1st respondent had a predetermined mind not to entertain the application and directed a fresh consideration of the application.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the 1st respondent's rejection of the application was influenced by legal malice and confirmation bias, as the 1st respondent seemed bent upon finding reasons for not granting upgradation to the petitioner. The court also highlighted the importance of fair decision-making and the duty of the State to act without ill will or malice, emphasizing the concept of legal malice or malice in law.

Issues: The issues included the rejection of the petitioner's application for upgradation, the biased attitude of the 1st respondent, and the compliance with the minimum land requirement for upgradation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 1st respondent's rejection of the application was influenced by legal malice and confirmation bias, impacting the decision-making process. The court also emphasized the duty of the State to act without ill will or malice and the importance of fair decision-making.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned communication of the 1st respondent dated 27.08.2019 and directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the Director of School Education for upgradation as a Middle School. The file was to be assigned to a different official for a fresh inspection and decision within twelve weeks.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.1435/A5/2019 and quash its order dated 27.08.2019 and direct the 1st respondent to pass an order granting upgradation to the petitioner School as a Middle School.)

1. The petitioner – School has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 27.08.2019 wherein the recognition sought for by the petitioner - School to grant upgradation as a Middle School, has been rejected by the 1st respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case:-

    * The petitioner – School is functioning with effect from 01.11.2002 on the basis of the approval granted under the Tamil Nadu Code of Regulation for Nursery and Primary Schools. The recognition has been renewed from time to time. It offers classes from L.K.G. to 5th standard. There are two buildings. The first building consists of 8 classrooms, one office room, one computer room and other toilet facilities for the students. There is also another structure which has an open auditorium. In the year 2013, based on the help received from some donors, a three-storeyed building has been constructed with 12 classrooms. This structure was put up with a view to upgrade the School initially into a Middle School [8th standard] and later, into a Senior Secondary School. The School is located in a village called Pulivalam and it is an admitted case that the total extent of the property that is available is 65 cents [29,940 sq.ft].

* The petitioner - School submitted an application to start a Higher Secondary Course [HSC] under the Matriculation curriculum in the year 2013. The papers were returned citing various reasons including the fact that the petitioner – School did not possess the land requirement of 3 Acres as per G.O.[2D] No.48, dated 21.07.2004. The petitioner – School filed a writ petition in WP.No.9817 of 2015 before this Court challenging the said Government Order and to declare the same as null and void and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India. This writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2016. The petitioner – School filed a writ appeal in WA.No.505 of 2016. In the mean time, some steps were taken to appoint a Committee to review the Government Order. This was brought to the notice of the Division Bench at the time of hearing the writ appeal and the Division Bench, recording the fact that a fresh Government Order is going to be issued by revisiting the norms, closed the writ appeal as infructuous. This was done on the ground that the earlier Government Order is going to get replaced by a new Government Order. It must be stated here that the Government Order never got reviewed and G.O.[2D] No.48, dated 21.07.2004 continues to be in force.

* The petitioner – School again submitted an application on 25.02.2019 before the 1st respondent seeking for upgradation as a Middle School. Even in the application, the petitioner - School had stated that one A.G.M.Nursery and Primary School located in Cuddalore was given upgradation as a Middle School even though it had the property less than 5 grounds as against the minimum requirement of 8 grounds. The attention of the authority was also brought to the orders passed by this Court in WP.No.2560 of 2017, dated 06.07.2017.

* The application submitted by the petitioner – School was kept pending without any action being taken on it and therefore, the petitioner - School approached this Court and filed WP.No.17285 of 2019 seeking for a direction to the Chief Educational Officer [CEO] to grant upgradation as a Middle School. When the writ petition was taken up for final hearing, this Court was informed that the CEO, Tiruvarur, by communication dated 27.06.2019, has directed the petitioner – Schoo








            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