THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Aggrieved by the order, dated 30.06.2025, passed in

W.P.No.14006 of 2025 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the

present Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant.

2. Heard Sri C.H. Jayakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri K. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.6, and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for TG Zilla Parishad, appearing for

respondent No.7.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the appellant-school was established by obtaining necessary permission

vide

from the competent authority proceedings, dated 28.02.2025, and in pursuance of the said permission, the appellant is running the educational institution. While so, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner

has approached this Court by filing the subject W.P.No.14006 of 2025 contending that the permission granted to the appellant is contrary to Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Management) Rules, 1993 (for short ‘the Rules, 1993’)

vide issued by the Government G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2), dated 01.01.1994, as the competent authority has granted permission to the appellant-school, which is situated within one kilometer to the educational institution of respondent No.1. After contest, the learned vide Single Judge impugned order, dated 30.06.2025, has disposed of the subject Writ Petition by permitting respondent No.1-writ petitioner to submit a representation to respondent No.3-Regional Joint Director with a request to take action against the appellant for starting school in violation of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993, and on such representation being made, respondent No.3 shall consider the said aspects, more particularly, Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the appellant and respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that the learned Single Judge at paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the impugned order has given a specific finding that the appellant-school is being established contrary to Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993 and if such a finding is there, the competent authority will cancel the permission granted to the appellant and the competent authority will not examine the case of the appellant properly. Learned counsel further contended that the requirement of distance as specified in Rule 4 of vide the Rules, 1993 issued G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, is only a guiding factor, but not mandatory.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the decision of this Court in Yerram Venkata Reddy v. Commissioner and Director of School Education, Hyderabad1, wherein it was held that Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993 is not mandatory and it is only a guiding factor. Learned counsel had further contended that as per Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, the competent authority has to examine the educational requirements and the population of the particular area and

1 (2001) 2 ALD 250

accordingly, grant permission. In the instant case, the competent authority has considered the case of the appellant and has rightly vide granted permission to run the educational institution proceedings, dated 28.02.2025. Therefore, that portion of the order of the learned Single Judge where a finding is recorded that the permission accorded to the appellant is contrary to Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993, may be set aside and let respondent No.1 submit a representation ventilating its grievance and it is for the competent authority to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with la