ORDER
Bakthavatsalam, J.
1. The writ petition is directed against an order of the first respondent refusing to grant recognition to the Teachers’ Training Institute for Women at Vallam, Tirunelveli District.
2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner filed an application for starting a Teachers’ Training Institute for Women at Vallam, Tirunelveli District, on 10.12.1985. He has submitted his application for recognition to the Joint Director of School Education (Secondary Education) who is the competent authority under Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977. The Joint Director of School Education (Secondary Education) examined the proposal and rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that there was no educational need to start any Teachers’ Training Institute for Women in Tirunelveli District as there were already one Government Teachers’ Training Institute for women besides 5 aided Teachers’ Training Institute for women. The authority thought that the educational need of the locality is met by these institutions. The other reason given by the authority is that the policy of the Government is not to open any new Teachers’ Training Institute in the State. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Director of School Education, the first respondent herein on 22.5.1986 which was received by the appellate authority on 24.5.1986. It seems that the appellate authority examined the appeal and came to the provisional conclusion that the amenities and other facilities provided in the institute are not adequate. As such, the appellate authority requested to show cause why the appeal petition for recognition to the Teachers’ Training Institute should hot be rejected. The appellate authority gave time till 5.12.1986 for obtaining his reply. By the impugned order dated 15.12.1986, the appellate authority rejected the appeal after considering the question of granting recognition. While doing so, the appellate authority held that the correspondent has not sent any reply till the date of the order i.e. 15.12.1986. Aggrieved by this order, the Institute has come to this court.
3. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, in spite of so many opportunities were given to them right from January, 1989. This is being one of the date fixed case posted before me, I am not inclined to grant any more adjournment. As such I am deciding the case on the allegations made in the affidavit.
4. Though Mr. Ramajagadeesan, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a question based upon the order of the original authority that the reasoning of the authority that there is no necessity for granting permission to Teachers’ Training Institute in that locality is not correct, in view of the decisions of this Court in Anna Teacher Training Institute for Women represented by its Manager v. Joint Director of School Education, Madras and Anr. W.P. No. 2022 of 1982 dated 23.1.1985, by a Division Bench and of Shanmugham, J., in (Society of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Palayamkottai and Anr. v. Director of School Education Madras-6 and Anr. W.P. No. 3487 dated 18.8.1986), I am not inclined to go into that question, since I take the view that the other contention raised by the petitioner in the affidavit that the impugned order of the first respondent is violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice, which came to be passed is without any legal sanction and without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case.
5. As already stated, the petitioner has been given a show cause notice by the appellate authority and was asked to give a reply within a particular time. It is alleged in para 9-G of the affidavit that the petitioner gave a telegram on 5.12.1986 requesting the first respondent extension of time till 13.12.1986. The impugned order was passed without waiting for the explanation of the petitioner. Though the order is dated 15.12.1986, the order does not mention about the telegram given by the petitioner on 5.12.1986 and there is no mention in the order that time was requested and it has been rejected. Further a reading of the order clearly shows that the, appellate authority passed the impugned order based on the report by lower authorities and no personal inspection has been made with regard to the infrastructure facilities. I say so because the original authority rejected the request not on merits but on a technical ground that the Teachers’ Training Institute is not necessary, based on the policy of the Government. When an appeal is made against that order, it is incumbent on the appellate authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner to prove that the petitioner’s Institute has got all the infrastructure facilities to conduct the institute. In my view, this impugned order is passed in violation of the principle of natural justice, since no opportunity was given to the petitioner to prove his case regarding the amenities and infrastructure facilities available. As such I am inclined to allow the writ petition. The impugned order of the first respondent is set aside and the first respondent is directed to take back the appeal on file and after issuing notice and giving opportunity to the petitioner to decide the matter afresh within two months from the date of this order. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs.