Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B.Pugalendhi, J
Sarib Abdullah @ Jim – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam Police Station, Pudukottai District. – Respondent
Crl.OP(MD)No.7442 of 2025|Crl.MP(MD)No.5458 of 2025|SC.No.44 of 2025|WP(MD)No.10554 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Leninkumar
For the Respondents:Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr.M.Iniyavan
PTA's authority is limited to advisory functions; without statutory permissions, actions like demolition of public structures are unlawful.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 447 - Tamil Nadu Public Buildings Licensing Act - Political motivation and unauthorized demolition of school buildings - Petitioner, as the President of Parent Teacher Association, authorized demolition of dilapidated classrooms but lacked necessary statutory approvals. Court dismissed the petition to quash proceedings citing unlawful actions and lack of jurisdiction by PTA over public buildings. (Paras 1-20)
(B) Administrative Authority - Role of Parent Teacher Associations - PTA serves advisory functions and cannot exercise statutory powers regarding public building maintenance or demolition without competent authority's approval. (Paras 10-17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims political motivation behind charges for demolishing unsafe classrooms upon resolution by PTA, while the complainant belongs to a rival political group. The demolition occurred in the absence of requisite permits, leading to criminal charges.
Findings of Court:
Unauthorized demolition was confirmed; charge sheet upheld as proper as PTA lacks legal authority for such actions outside regulated processes.
Issues: Whether actions by the PTA President constituted crimes due to missing statutory permissions and if the case reflects political rivalry.
Ratio Decidendi: Authority of PTAs is limited to advisory roles; any alterations to public facilities must adhere strictly to legal protocols and receive requisite approvals from appropriate government bodies.
Result: Criminal Original Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused background and allegations (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding authority and intent (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's consideration of case facts (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. pta functions and legal limitations (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. distortion of pta purpose (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. dismissal with liberty to defend (Para 18 , 19) |
ORDER
The petitioner, President of a Parent Teacher Association, has been arrayed as an accused in Crime No.16 of 2022 on the complaint of the second respondent, for the offences under Section 447 IPC and Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act. The final report has been filed and the case is now pending in SC.No.44 of 2025 before the Principal District Court, Pudukottai. The petitioner seeks to quash the said proceedings on the ground that the case is politically motivated and that he had only acted pursuant to a resolution of the Parents Teacher Association.
2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was elected as President of the Parents Teacher Association (PTA) of Kottaipattinam Government Higher Secondary School in 2018. Two classrooms were in a dilapidated condition. The Headmaster requested the Block Development Officer to demolish them, but no action was taken. Therefore, in a meeting held on 17.10.2018, the Parents Teacher Association passed a resolution authorising demolition. The petitioner, as President, implemented the resolution and demolished the two unsafe classrooms.
3.It is contended that the second respondent, a member of the ruling political party, subsequently filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the petitioner alleging unauthorised demolition. On the directions of this Court in WP(MD)No.10554 of 2021, the Chief Educational Officer (CEO) lodged a complaint, resulting in Crime No.16 of 2022. According to the petitioner, the Public Interest Litigation was disposed of without notice to him and without considering the Parents Teacher Association resolution signed by the Headmaster, Teachers, Jamath members and parents.Nevertheless, the petitioner alone was made a scapegoat.
4.The petitioner further urged that he acted in good faith, without criminal intent, solely for student safety. The complaint is politically motivated as he belongs to the AIADMK party, while the complainant belongs to DMK. Reliance was placed onState of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [ 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 ] to contend that the allegations do not disclose any offence. It was also argued that since the occurrence was in 2019 and the FIR was registered only in 2022, the proceedings are barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC.
5.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though the petitioner was elected as Parents Teacher Association's President and a resolution was passed for demolition, he demolished the building without approval of the competent authority, namely the PWD, and without intimation to the Headmaster. The demolition was carried out on 04.05.2019 during summer vacation. The in-charge Headmaster, by report dated 17.06.2019, specifically stated that the demolition was done without his knowledge.
6.It was further argued that the PTA has no legal authority to order demolition of a public school building, which is under the control of the PWD and regulated by the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings Licensing Act . Demolition requires approval from the School Education Department and local body, supported by a structural assessment. None of these requirements were met. Hence, the act constitutes an offence.
7.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials.
8.The admitted facts are that a Parents Teacher Association resolution dated 17.10.2018 authorised demolition of two classrooms, which was signed by the petitioner, Headmaster, Teachers, Jamath members and some parents. The demolition was carried out on 04.05.2019. The in-charge Headmaster reported on 17.06.2019 that the demolition was done without prior intimation.
9.The FIR was regist
