IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 30^th OF MAY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No.15438 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

SMT. MEET SADHWANI W/O SHRI AAKASH SADHWANI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O A-225, INDRA VIHAR COLONY, AIRPORT ROAD, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SURDEEP KHAMPARIYA - ADVOCATE)

AND PRINCIPAL M/S. SUNRISE CONVENT SCHOOL, PLOT NO.6, WARD NO.10, BHEL QUARTERS RING ROAD, JARIPATKA NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)

.....RESPONDENT ............................................................................................................................................

This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

O R D E R

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to decide/consider the representation of the Petition dated 10.05.2024 produced as Annexure P/3.

II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to issue School Leaving Certificate/ Transfer Certificate on behalf of both minor children in favour of petitioner as soon as possible.

III. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.

2. Undisputedly, respondent is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Accordingly, counsel for petitioner was directed to address this Court on the territorial jurisdiction but except mentioning that since petitioner is the resident of Bhopal, therefore this Court has territorial jurisdiction, no other argument on this question was advanced.

4. Considered the submission made by counsel for the petitioner.

5. Cause of action means bundle of facts which are required to be decided to resolve the dispute. Place of residence of petitioner has nothing to do with the dispute in hand. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this Writ Petition.

6. In spite of that, it was constantly submitted by counsel for petitioner that this Court should entertain this petition.

7. Accordingly, counsel for petitioner was also directed to address this Court as to whether a Writ Petition against private unaided school is maintainable or not?

8. However, counsel for petitioner was not in a position to answer the query.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of St. Mary's Education Society and Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others reported in (2023) 4 SCC 498, has held as under:-

"66. Merely because a writ petition can be maintained against the private individuals discharging the public duties and/or public functions, the same should not be entertained if the enforcement is sought to be secured under the realm of a private law. It would not be safe to say that the moment the private institution is amenable to writ jurisdiction then every dispute concerning the said private institution is amenable to writ jurisdiction. It largely depends upon the nature of the dispute and the enforcement of the right by an individual against such institution. The right which purely originates from a private law cannot be enforced taking aid of the writ jurisdiction irrespective of the fact that such institution is discharging the public duties and/or public functions. The scope of the mandamus is basically limited to an enforcement of the public duty and, therefore, it is an ardent duty of the court to find out whether the nature of the duty comes within the peripheral of the public duty. There must be a public law element in any action.

* * *

75. We may sum up our final conclusions as under:

75.1. An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law