IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 25-08-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.11986 of 2001 Valivalam Desigar Polytechnic Rep. by its Chairman, Nagapattinam. .. Petitioner. Versus 1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai. 3.Additional Director of Technical Education (Polytechnic) Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai-25. 4.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Technical Education Circle Directorate of Technical Education Campus, Chennai-25. 5.A.D.J.Dharmambal Trust, Nagapattinam, rep. by its Managing Trustee. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, to issue suitable directions to the respondents 1 to 4 to handover the land and building by implementing the letter, dated 7.7.1993, in Ref.No.456/H2/91 of the 3rd respondent in consonance with the G.O.Ms.No.933, Education, dated 5.7.1990, by directing the 5th respondent to shift their Women's Polytechnic to their own premises. For Petitioner : Ms.G.Thilakavathi For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader (R1-R4) Mr.M.Sekar (R5) O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner Polytechnic was started in the year 1960. In the year 1965, the then Assistant Director of Technical Education had requested the petitioner Polytechnic to donate to the Government an area of 10 acres of land in the petitioner polytechnic campus for the establishment of a Government Junior Technical School. Accordingly, on 11.9.65, an extent of 10 acres of land was handed over to the Executive Engineer, Public Works department, Regional Engineering College of Education, Trichy, for construction of a Junior Technical School. The Government had constructed a building in the donated land for the purpose of establishing the school. However, the school could not be run due to poor response from the students and since there were certain audit objections, the Government had decided to close down the High School and it passed the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.933, Education J2 Department, dated 5.7.90, specifying that the building of the Government School attached to the aided Polytechnic may be transferred to the same aided Polytechnic by collecting nominal rents. While so, the petitioner had permitted the 5th respondent to set up a womens’ polytechnic in the existing building constructed by the Government. The Government had also granted permission to the 5th respondent to run a womens’ polytechnic as per G.O.Ms.No.440, Education (J2) Department, dated 26.3.90, and it had been specifically stated therein that the womens’ polytechnic located in the building of the Government Higher Secondary School attached to the petitioner Polytechnic was to be run on rental basis. The said fact was further clarified in the proceedings of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, dated 24.12.92, stating that the property in question has, all along, been with the petitioner as per the Government order, dated 5.7.90. The petitioner had informed the second respondent, on 2.3.93, that the 5th respondent has been permitted to continue on rental basis for a period of two years only and it was also agreed that the 5th respondent would construct their own buildings and relocate the womens’ polytechnic therein. Based on the request of the petitioner, the second respondent by a communication, dated 7.7.93, directed the 5th respondent to release the land and the building of the Government Higher Secondary School, before the end of the academic year 1994-95 and it had further requested that the property is to be handed over to the petitioner soon after the 5th respondent had shifted the womens’ polytechnic to their own premises. In spite of the various representations, no effective steps were taken for handing over the land and the building to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed emphasis on the communication of the Director of Technical Education, Chennai, sent to the managing trustee of the 5th respondent Trust in Letter No.104569/CW8/91, dated 2.1.98, which is as follows:
“Please refer the letters cited. I request you to inform as to whether the above said Government High Secondary School building has been handed over to M/s.Valivalam Desikar Polytechnic as already requested in this office letter and as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.933, Education, dated 5.7.90. If not, please make necessary arrangement to hand over the above building immediately to Valivalam Desikar Polytechnic and intimate.”
In spite of the specific request made by the second respondent, the 5th respondent had not complied with the said request.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent denying the allegations made on behalf of the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner cannot seek the closure of the 5th respondent Polytechnic which has been imparting Technical Education to the students of the backward and tsunami affected persons. The said institution is managed by a responsible group of persons of high repute and therefore, the petitioner cannot demand the surrender of the assigned lands. It has also been stated that the 5th respondent institution offers technical education to girl students of Nagapattinam District. The total strength of the institution is 1010 and at present it is carrying on co-education in accordance with the new policy of the Government. The 5th respondent institution offers valuable courses such as Diploma in Electronics and Communication, Computer Engineering, Instrumental Engineering, Information Technology, Electrical and Electronics. A Government of India sponsored Community Polytechnic is functioning in the 5th respondent institution, for more than five years, rendering service and training to the rural people in the District of Nagapattinam. It has also been stated that once the land has been donated and conveyed by the petitioner institution, it can no longer exercise any right or control over the same. Therefore, there is no locus standi for the petitioner to file the present writ petition demanding the handing over of the building and land as prayed for by the petitioner.
5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Polytechnic had stated that it would suffice if the petitioner Polytechnic is permitted to make a detailed representation to the first respondent and if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits, within a specified time, in view of the relevant Government orders and the communications issued by the respondents 1 to 4.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent had no objection for this Court passing such an order.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as for the respondents, the petitioner Polytechnic is permitted to submit a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from today, and on such representation being submitted, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.
8. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
csh
To
1. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.Director of Technical Education,
Guindy, Chennai.
3.Additional Director of Technical
Education (Polytechnic)
Directorate of Technical Education,
Guindy, Chennai-25.
4.The Superintending Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Technical Education Circle
Directorate of Technical Education Campus,
Chennai 25