COMMON ORDER

Since the issues involved in both writ petitions are interlinked, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to according to the ranking in W.P.(MD) No. 6058 of 2026.

2. The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 08.09.2025 passed by the second respondent and the consequential communication dated 10.10.2025 issued pursuant thereto.

3. By the order dated 08.09.2025, the Managing Trustee of Benedict Mission, namely, Mr. Selvamanohar, was directed to take steps to run the school in premises other than Survey No.182/1B. It was further observed that running the school in Survey No.182/1B without any valid lease or lawful right over the property was unsafe and not in the interest of the students. The order further stated that failure to comply with the said direction would entail a recommendation to the Director of Private Schools for cancellation of the recognition granted to the school. Consequentially, by communication dated 10.10.2025, the second respondent requested the first respondent to ensure that no classes are conducted in the building belonging to Mrs. Thilaga Terrancy situated in Survey No. 182/1B.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent, namely Benedict Mission, Benedict Nagar, Palanichettypatti, Theni District, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 18.03.2021 with the petitioner. Under the said MOU, it was recorded that the third respondent was unable to effectively run the school in the name and style of “Benedict Matriculation Higher Secondary School” and that the petitioner, namely CEOA Educational Society, Madurai, which has been rendering educational services for more than 25 years, had agreed to assist the third respondent in running the institution.

5. As per the terms of the MOU, the parties agreed that the name of the school would be changed to “Madurai CEOA Matriculation Higher Secondary School” and that the third respondent would extend all necessary assistance for the said purpose. The MOU was to remain in force from 18.03.2021 till 31.03.2023. The petitioner was authorised to function as the Chief Functionary of the school and was vested with overall administrative and academic control. The petitioner was also empowered to act as the Correspondent or appoint a Correspondent, appoint the Principal and other staff, and develop the infrastructural facilities of the school at its own cost during the subsistence of the agreement.

6. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the MOU, the name of the school was changed and recognition was renewed from time to time by the competent authorities at the instance of the petitioner. In the meantime, one Mrs. Thilaga Terrancy submitted a complaint before the educational authorities alleging that the petitioner was running the school unauthorisedly in Survey No.182/1B. Upon enquiry, the authorities concluded that the petitioner was conducting the school in the said survey number without any valid lease deed or document conferring lawful possession over the property. Consequently, the Managing Trustee of the third respondent institution was directed not to run the school in Survey No.182/1B, which culminated in the impugned proceedings and the consequential communication.

7. Mr. P. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that under the MOU, the third respondent had entrusted the management and operation of the school to the petitioner in respect of Survey Nos.182/2, 182/1B, 184/4 and 182/1. He further submitted that Mrs. Thilaga Terrancy had signed the MOU as a consenting witness and, therefore, it must be inferred that she had consented to the petitioner running the school in the said premises.

8. The learned counsel further contended that the name of the school had been changed to “Madurai CEOA Matriculation Higher Secondary School” with the approval of the competent authority and that the recognition granted to