The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to stay the closing order vide Rc. No. 2503/Un-Rec-School/DyEO/BGZt2o24-25dated 13.12.2024 passed by 3rd respondent until dispose of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K MALLIKARJUN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER :7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2765 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for respon,lent No:;.1 to 3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Shorn of Llnnecessary details, the case of the petrtiotrer, in brief, is that it had approached the respondents-authoritles and submitted a letter, dt.3O.O3.2024 seeking permission to open a School from Nursery to VIII class; that in spite of the petitioner submitting tl-ie aforesaid Ietter, no permission has been granted by the respondents -authorities; and that since, the respondents-authorities did not refuse the request made by the petitioner under the aforesaid letter, the same it is to be treated as deemed approval granted in terms of Seclion 7 of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (for short 'the ActJ.

3. Petitioner further contends that on the respondents-authorities informing orally to pay necessary charges for grant of permission, it had made payment in a sum of Rs.20,O0O/- on 30.1.O.2023r and that in spite of the petitioner making the aforesaid payment and submitting a letter on 30.O:).2024, the respondents-authorities have issucd the 2 f) impugned proceeding, dt'13'12 2024' directing the petitioner to close the School with immediate effect i'e', within three (03) days from the date of receipt of the said proceeding'

4. Petitioner further contends that there are about 24O students presently studying in various classes in the petitioner-School' and on account of the impugned proceeding issued by the respondents- authorities, they will be put to hardships' and thus' seeks indulgence of this Court

5. Per contra, Iearned Government Pleader for Education while refuting the submissions made by the learned counsei for the petitioner, would contend that the claim of owner of the school having 1S factuailY an incorrect submitted an appiication on 30.o3.2024, statement, as no application has been submitted in the prescribed format seeking permission as contended by the petitioner' Learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner 6. had only submitted a letter seeking permission' and as such the said letter cannot be considered as an application seeking permission' much less for it to be considered as having attained the status of deemed sanction of permission in terms of Section 7 of the Act' Irarned Government Pleader would further contend that the 7. petitioner by making payment in a sum of Rs'20'OO0/- on 30'10'2023 is required to submit an application in order to obtain necessary i I 7 3 permrsston enclosing therewith necessary permissions/clearances from the concerned authorities like Municipal, police anr:l pirs ar.lthori[ies, for grant of such permission; and that it is only alter ,lue verihcation as to the petitioner,s builriing meeting all the requirements,,,permissions from the competenr authorities, permission can L,e grantr.d; and that only after granting permission/ recognition, students can be admitted. 8. Learned Government pleader would submit that as the petitioner did not obtain :rny such permission, the impugrred pro<.:eeding was issued calling upon the petitioner to crose the Sch oor wittL immediate effect i.e., within (03) days from the date of receipt ot. the sai<j order. 9. Learned (iovernment pleader would further contend that since, the impugned proceeding has been issued on 73.12.2024, directing the petitioner to close the School, petitioner cannot seek for rt:opening of the school or pr:rmit it to operate the School, for any period of time, after a period of more than one month, more particularly, in the absence of fire Noc, thereby endangering the lives of the stucrents. 10. I have taken note of the respective submissions made. 1 1. Admittedly. the petitioner did not obtain a:ey recognition or permission from the competent authority for its operations. Further, the petitioner without having any valid permission/ rer:ognition from the competent authority had also admitted students into ."rarious r;rauses in violation of the provisions of Section 1g of the Act. 11 1l 4 -)

72. It is also to be noted that any school before seeking permission is required to obtain Fire NOC in terms of Section 13 of the Telangana Fire Services Act, 1999, and admittedly, the petitioner did not obtain Fire NOC either before the commencement of its activities or before admitting students into the school as required under G O Ms t'lo'56, Home (Services.lV) DepartmenL, dt.26.O7 .2O 19, .

13. Further, the aforesaid G.O., was issued in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avinash Mehrotra a/ s' Union of Indial wherein it was held : '34. This Court has routinely held that another fundamental right to life encompasses more than a breath and a heartbeat ln reflecting on the meaning of "personal liberty" in Article 19 and 21, we have held that "that 'personal liberty' is used in the article as a compendious term to include within itself all the varieties of rights which go to makeup the 'personal liberties' of man" I Kharo.k Singh a' State o-f U'P' & Ors'2 para 161. Similarly, we must hold that educating a child requires more than a teacher and a blackboard, or a classroom and a book The right to education requires that a child study in a quality school, and a quality school certainly should pose no threat to a child's safety' We reached a similar conclusion, on the comprehensive guarantees implicit in the right to education, only recently in our opinion in Ashoka Kumdr Thqkur a' Union of India & Ors3" .

14. Thus, the petitioner by admitting students without any valid permission/ recognition or without having any fire safety measures in place by obtaining Fire NOC, has put the lives of 24O students' at risk' '(zoos) e scc ssa ' atR t9e: sc tzgs '(zooa) o scc r 5

15. In vierv ol the above, this court is of the corLsidered view that the impugned proceeding as issued by the resiponden rs-authorities directing the petitioner to close the school immediately i.c., within three (o3) days from the date of receipt of the impugnerl order, does not call for any interlerence. I { (

76. At this stage, though a submission is made on l>ehalf of the petitioner for grant of one (O1) month time for obLaining Fire NOC for it to be produced before the authorities for grantinil necessary permission/re<:ognition to run the school, it is to be noted that the impugned pror:e.eding is dt. 13. 12.2024, and thus, onc rrrore month period had lapsed since then, and the petitioner dicl not place on record any document to show the petitioner approaching the authorities seeking Fire NOC in terms of the provisions of Tela-ngana Frire Services Act, 1999 or filing an apprication in terms of the Right ti> Education Act,2OO9, seeking permission/recognition to the petitioner _School, the said request caltnot be acceded to by this Court.

77. In view of the above, this Court is of the view th;1t the Writ Petition as hled : s devoid of merit and is accordinl3ly dism issed order as to costs No

18. However, it is open for the respondents to accomrnodate the students studying in petitioner-school by getting them admitted in nearby school, so as not to disturb their academic vear. 6 1-l

19. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shal1 stand closed in the light of this final order. //TRUE COPY// SD/- T. TIRUMALA D VI ASSISTANT REGI SECTION FFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. K MALLIKARJUN Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies 3 KKS Po \ I i I i I l i HIGH COURT DATED:31 10112025 ORDER WP.No.2765 ot 2025 1 HE SI4 14- (1o ( 11 FtE 2[Z5 * l€snarcH t gO ($( D 2 a ^ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \I I !