ORDER
Srinivasan, J.
1. This petition is one for a mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to grant recognition to the petitioner institution and pass further orders.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the institution commenced in the year 1987. It is also stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that the petitioner sent several reminders to the 1st and 2nd respondents for recognition of the institution. It is further averred that in the middle of December 1989, the staff from Chief Educational Officer’s office, Erode, came and inspected the petitioner-school. In paragraph 6, it is stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam in his proceedings No. A/2/16108/87 dated 18.1.1988 enquired the petitioners and obtained statement regarding the conduct of Teacher Training Course and the Institute. In paragraph 7, it is averred that on 5-1-90 Deputy Inspector of Schools from Gobichettipalayam verified and conducted enquiry regarding the institution. It is stated in the affidavit that no further orders have been passed by the respondents, though nearly three years had elapsed since the date of the application.
3. On these averments, I ordered notice of motion on 18.1.1990 to the respondents returnable by 5.2.90. I permitted the petitioner to take private notice and also serve one set of papers on the Additional Government Pleader, who was directed by me to get necessary instructions before 5.2.1990. I directed the case to be posted on 5.2.1990.
4. On 5.2.90, the matter was adjourned to 14.2.1990, as the Additional Government Pleader had not received instructions by then. On 14.2.1990,I adjourned the matter to 19.2.1990 and directed the respondents to file their counter by the adjourned date.
5. Counter-affidavit was served on the petitioner’s counsel on 20.2.1990 and presented in court on 27.2.1990 when the matter was called on 27.2.1990. It was found that there was no denial in the counter as to the averments made in paragraph 5,6 and 7 with reference to the inspection made by the officials of the Department and enquiries conducted by them. There is a bald denial in paragraph 2 of the counter that the various allegations raised by the petitioner in paragraph 2 to 16 of his affidavit as false except those that are specifically admitted in the counter affidavit and the petitioner was put to strict proof of all other allegations. This kind of general denial is of absolutely no use. If a counter affidavit is filed by a party in any writ petition or any other proceedings, in this court it must contain express and specific denial of the averments which the deponent wants to deny. A general averment that all the allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are denied has never been treated as sufficient denial by this court. Hence I cannot accept the Additional Govt. Pleader’s contention that paragraph 2 contains denial of the factum of inspection and enquiry held by the departmental officials as alleged by the petitioner herein. Apart from that general denial, there is nothing whatever in the counter to show whether the averments made by the petitioner are denied or not.
6. On 27.2.1990 when the matter was being heard, I pointed out to the. Additional Govt. Pleader that there was no denial with regard to the alleged inspection. Learned Additional Govt. Pleader prayed for further time to file a supplemental counter. I adjourned the matter to 15.3.1990 and directed the Additional Govt. Pleader to file a counter with regard to all the averments found in the affidavit filed in support of the petition on or before 14.3.1990. Even today (15.3.1990) when the matter is called, there is no such counter-affidavit from the respondent. Additional counter affidavit ought to have been filed yesterday itself. It has not been filed till now. Learned Additional Govt. Pleader says that several particulars have to be gathered as it is a matter of three years old and the respondents could not get those particulars or instruct him in time. I cannot accept this explanation. Obviously the respondents are thinking that this Court cannot do anything in these matters and they can take their own time to do things according to their own whims and fancies. Such an attitude should not only be condemned but punished whenever occasion arises.
7. Having regard to the fact that there is no express denial in the counter filed by the respondents and the fact that no further counter-affidavit from the respondents denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition has been filed inspite of another opportunity having been given to them, I proceed on the footing that the averments made in the petition are trues.
8. Hence it is to be held that enquiry has been made by the departmental officials as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition pursuant to the application for recognition. There is no reason why the respondents have not passed any orders on the application made by the petitioner for grant of recognition. It is not only a power but also the duty of the respondents to consider the application for recognition filed by various educational institutions and to pass orders as early as possible. They cannot go on keeping matters pending for years together and ultimately come out with a case that till orders are passed the institution and the students will get no benefits whatever, particularly in the case of minority institutions, who do not require the permission of the Educational Authority to start an educational institution. Their right is recognised by Article 30 of the Constitution of India and also incorporated in Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act. Hence the petitioner was entitled to open an institution without the permission of the respondents and apply for recognition thereafter.
9. But grant of recognition is not a matter of right. Hence the minority institution is bound to apply for recognition, but that circumstance, cannot be taken advantage of by the respondents and the application for recognition cannot be kept pending for a long time. When the Legislature has recognised the right of a minority to open a school without permission, the statutory authorities cannot defeat the purpose of such institutions by their inaction and negligence. Recently I had occasion in a case arising under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act to comment upon the indifference and apathy of the officials in matters concerning educational institutions. That was also a case of the competent authority failing to pass orders for more than a year and three months. In that case, I could grant relief to the party as there was a pre-existing contractual right. But, unfortunately, this case cannot be concluded on a similar reasoning as recognition is not a matter of right It has to be granted by the Government, if the institution wants its students to write public examination.
10. It is high time, the Government takes note of these matters and frame appropriate rules fixing time limit within which the authorities should act and prescribe the consequences of their failure to do so. If the Government does not do so, it is for the Legislature to pass an appropriate legislation.
11. The respondents are directed hereby to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for recognition and pass appropriate orders thereon on or before 6.4.1990. The orders must be communicated to the petitioner. In view of the stand taken by the respondents that no application from the petitioner is available with the respondents, the petitioner is directed to file a true copy of the application before the concerned officials on or before 22.3.1990. The copy of the application shall be treated as the original application by the respondents and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon.
12 Unfortunately, the Government is not made a party to this writ petition. Had the Government been made a party, I would have given directions to the Govt. to take disciplinary proceedings against the erring officials in this case. Since the Government is not a party, I am not in a position to give such a direction. I believe, the Government will take note of this judgment and take proceedings against the officials, who have been negligent and careless in the matter of considering the application for recognition filed by various institutions, particularly in this case for not having passed any orders on the application for nearly a period of three years. The Registrar shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary to the Govt. Education Department, Madras.
13 The Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Respondents 1 and 2 shall pay the costs of this writ petition. Counsel’s fee is Rs.2,000/-