Vadamaradchy Hindu Educational Society Ltd. V. The Minister Of Education

1961 Present : H. N. G. Fernando, J.

VADAMARADCHY HINDU EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY LTD.,
Petitioner, and THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION
and another, Respondents

S. C. No. 34 and No. 407 of 1960-Application for a
mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari

Assisted Schools and Training Colleges (Special Provisions) Act, No. 5 of 1960- Sections 5, 6 (b), 11, 15-Unaided School-Failure of proprietor to maintain due facilities-Order of Minister appointing the Director of Education as manager-Duty of Minister to hold a proper inquiry before making such Order- Natural justice-Certiorari.

Section 11 (b) of the Assisted Schools and Training Colleges (Special Provisions) Act, No. 5 of 1960, provides that:-

" Where the Minister is satisfied-

(b) after consultation with the Director, that any School which, by . virtue of the provisions of this Act, is being administered as an unaided school, is being so administered in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any Regulations or Orders made thereunder or of any other written law applicable in the case of such school,

the Minister may, by Order published in the Gazette, declare that, with effect from such date as shall be specified in the Order-

(i) such school shall cease to be an unaided school;

(ii) such school shall be deemed for all purposes to be an assisted school, and

(iii) the Director shall be the manager of such school."

On 30th December 1960 a party made certain complaints by letter to the Director of Education stating that the petitioner, which was an Educational Society and the proprietor of an unaided school, had, in breach of section 5 of the Assisted Schools and Training Colleges (Special Provisions) Act, No. 5 of 1960, ceased to maintain certain facilities and services that were maintained by the School immediately prior to 21st July 1960. The complaints were that (1) the School Hostel had been closed down, (2) the Post-Primary School latrines had been demolished, (3) the School Playground had been converted into a timber depot, (4) a section of the Primary School which housed the Handicraft Laboratory had been fenced off. The Director then wrote to the petitioner on 11th January 1961 requesting him to show cause on or before 25th January why an Order under section 11 (b) should not be published. The petitioner replied on 23rd January explaining that the complaints were fabricated With an evil motive and requesting an inquiry at the spot if the Director was not satisfied with the explanations. By letter dated 26th January the Director informed the Principal of the School that the Minister of Education had ordered that the School should be taken over for Director Management with effect from 1st February 1961.

It was admitted that an Order under section 11 is " quasi-judicial ".

Held, that the power to make an Order trader section 11 does not depend on any consideration of public policy, nor upon the existence of facts on account of which such considerations may render a decision necessary or desirable. On the contrary, the power depends on the Minister's satisfaction that facts exist which establish a contravention of the Act or its Regulations, which contravention (by section 15) would itself be a punishable offence. The question, therefore, in the present case was whether there was an " inquiry conducted with due regard to the rights accorded by the principles of natural justice to the petitioner againsfc whom it was directed ". (See The University of Ceylon, v. Fernando, 61 N. L. R. 505 (P.O.)).

The denial of a " fair opportunity " to the petitioner " to correct or contradict any relevant statement to his prejudice " and the failure of the Director to inspect the School and hold an inquiry on the spot through an officer of his Department entitled the petitioner to a writ of Certiorari quashing the Order of the Minister.

APPLICATION f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document