BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30/04/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD).No.4131 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2010 K.M.Rahamath Beevi ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur District. 3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, D.E.O. Office, Thanjavur District. 4.The Collector, Collector Office, Thanjavur District. 5.The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. 6.The Tahsildar, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Thanjavur District. 7.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station, Thanjavur District. 8.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Office of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvidaimaruthur. (at Govindapuram) 9.The correspondent, Government Aided Middle School, Krishnan Koil Street, Aduthurai, Thiruvidaimaruthur Range, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 4 to 8 respondents herein to exercise their statutory power vested in them under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Rugulation) Act, 1973 and Rules made thereunder to forthwith shift the 9th Respondent School under their control with 101 poor students to some other safe and protected building. !For Petitioner ... Mr.B.Jameel Arasu ^For Respondents 1 to 8 ... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar Special Government Pleader For 9th Respondent ... Mr.A.Thirumoorthy ******* :ORDER
Heard Mr.B.Jameel Arasu, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to
8 and Mr.A.Thirumoorthy, learned counsel for the 9th respondent.
2.The writ petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing
door No.14/48 at Krishnan Koil Street, Aduthurai Village, Thiruvidaimaruthur
Taluk, Thanjavur District and it is her case that her forefathers have permitted
the 9th respondent to start a school in the said place as a tenant and
accordingly, the 9th respondent has started the school from the year 1890 and
the school is running as a Government aided middle school.
3.It appears that at the instance of the petitioner and on the basis
of her representation that the building is a dilapidated and 150 years old
building, the 8th respondent has conducted an inspection and in the written
submission dated 30.03.2010 has stated that there have been some deficiency in
respect of the structure including that the sanitary facilities are not
available, the fire extinguishing methods are not provided with etc., and he has
also recommended for a direction against the 9th respondent to shift the school
in the interest of the students. Thereafter, based on the said representation it
appears, the 3rd respondent District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur
in his proceedings in e.f.vz;.6370/M2/2009 dated 18.04.2010 has certain
deficiency, which are as follows:
“1) gs;spapy; cs;s rikayiwapy; XLfs; ny;iy, gs;sp jhH;thuj;jpByBa rikay;
bra;ag;gl;L tUfpwJ vd bjhptpj;Js;shh;.
2. rikayiwg; gFjpapy; fPH;g[w Rth; noe;j epiyapy; cs;sJ.
3. tFg;giw Kiy (bjd;Bkw;F) Rthpy; Nuk; frpe;Js;sJ.
4. KA;fpy; rl;lk; cj;jpuA;fs; fiwahdhy; mhpf;fg;gl;L cSj;j epiyapy; cs;sJ.
5. fHptiw gGjile;J guhkhpg;g[ nd;wp cs;sJ.
6. rpy nlA;fspy; kutpl;lk; cSj;J Bgha; cs;sJ.
7. fl;ol cWjpr; rhd;W 01.02.2009 Kjy; 31.01.2012 Koa bgwg;gl;Ls;sJ.
8. fl;ol chpkk;, jPaizg;g[ rhd;W, Rfhjhur; rhd;W bgwg;gltpy;iy.”
Therefore, commended that as the place is not suitable for school, not to
continue to run it as a school, in the interest of the children
4.This Court, while admitting the writ petition, by interim order
dated 29.03.2010, has directed the 8th respondent Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer not to permit the 9th respondent to conduct the school in
the said premises for a period of four weeks. The 9th respondent has filed an
application to vacate the interim order. It is not in dispute that the academic
year 2009-2010 has already come to an end and the examination has been completed
and based on the order of the 3rd respondent it is clear that as on date, the
said premises is not fit to be used for continuing the school for the year 2010-
2011.
5.There is a dispute between the petitioner and the 9th respondent
regarding the school premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner also
would submit that the 9th respondent has taken two different stands and on the
one hand he claims that he is paying the monthly rent and on the other hand he
claims that the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title had donated the property in
favour of the 9th respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that 9th
respondent is permitted to occupy to run the school in the premises as a
permissible occupier as a tenant.
6.Be that as it may, these are the issues, which cannot be decided
in this writ petition and such issues shall be decided in a properly constituted
suit instituted before the competent authority. But the question to decide
before this Court is whether the 9th respondent can be permitted to run the
school in the said premises? As stated earlier as per the proceedings of the
District Elementary Educational Officer and taking note of the interest of the
children, the 9th respondent cannot be permitted to run the school in the
premises. As submitted by the Special Government Pleader, it is for the 9th
respondent to shift the school to another place so as to run the school for the
next academic year. It is not the case of the educational authorities, that
they are cancelling the permission given to the 9th respondent, but actually
they are directing the 9th respondent to shift the school to another place.
When such direction is given to the 9th respondent, which does not mean that the
9th respondent is directed to hand over the possession of the premises to the
petitioner. As far as the right of title and possession of the petitioner, it
is for the petitioner to workout his remedy in the properly constituted suit
before the competent civil Court and till such decision is taken by the
competent Civil Court, it is not open to the petitioner to enter into the
premises, which is admittedly in the possession of the 9th respondent.
7.The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.
sj
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Office of the Chief Educational Officer,
Thanjavur District.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
D.E.O. Office,
Thanjavur District.
4.The Collector,
Collector Office,
Thanjavur District.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO),
Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District.
6.The Tahsildar,
Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
7.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
8.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Office of the Assistant Elementary Educational
Officer,
Thiruvidaimaruthur. (at Govindapuram)