The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.10 i.e., "Therefore, the contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Educatiorr and learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 9 is contrary to the said Rule," and suggestions made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.11 i.e., "with a request to take action against respondent No.9 for starting school in violataon of Rule - 4 of the Rules, 1993, in the Order dt.30/06/2025, passed in WP.No 1z006 of 2025. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CH.JAYAKRISHNA Counsel for the Res.pondent No.1: K.SANDEEP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for ttre Res pondent No.6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR TG ZP The Courl delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1011 OF 2025 UDGMENT: (l'cr Hon'ble Sri lusticr.: Atrhinarrcl Kumar Sh.rvili) Aggrieved by the order, dated 30.06.2025, passed W.P.No.14006 of 2025 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the present Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant.

2. Heard Sri C.H. Jayakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri K. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, learned Government Pieader for School Education appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.6, and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for TG Zilla Parishacl, appearing for respondent No.7.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the appellant-school was established by obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority ttide proceedings, dated 28.02.2025, and in pursuance of the said permission, the appellant is running the educational institution. While so, the 1't responclent-writ petitioner has approacht:d this Court by filing the subject W.P No.14006 of 2025 ) AKS,J & VRKR.J w.A.No.l0l I of2025 contending th.rt the permission granted to the appellant is conh'arv to Rule 4 <tf lhe Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, rlecognition, Administration and Control of Schools unrler Private \lanagement) Rules, "1993 (for short'the Rules, 1993') issued by the (lovernmentttide G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2), dated

07.07.1994, as lhe, competent authority has granted permission to the appellant-school, rvhicl-r is situatet.l within one kilometer to the educational institutiorr of respondent No.1. After contes! the leamed Singie Judge zridc irnpugned order, dated 30.06.2025, has disposed of the subject Writ Petition by permitting respondent No.1-writ petitioner to sr-rb:nit tr representatior-r to respondent No.3-Regional Joint Director witlr a request to take action against the appellant for starting school in violation of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993, and or-r such representation being rnade, respondent No.3 shall consider the said aSfreCtS, m()re particularly, Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993 and pass appropriate orclers llt accordance with law after affordirrg a11 opportunity to tlre appellant and respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that -) AKS.J & VRK.R,.J W A No l0l I of2025 the leanred Single ]udge at paragraph Nos.10 anci 11 of the impug1"6 order has given a specific finding that the appeilant-school is being established contrary to Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993 and if such a finding is there, the competent authority will cancel the permission grantecl to the appellant and the competent authority will not examine the case of the appellarrt properly. Learned counsel further contended that the requirement of distance as specified in Rule 4 of tlre Rules, 1993 issued aide G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, is or.rly a guiding factor, but not mandatory.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, rn support of his subrnissions, has relied upon the decision of this Court in Yerram Venkata Reddy v. Commissioner and Director of School Education, Hyderabadl, wherein it was held that Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993 is not mandatory and it is only a guiding factor. Learned counsel had further contended that as per Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act, the competent authority has to examine the educational requirements and the population of the particular area and ' 1zoo11 z aro zso r- I I AKS.J & VRKR.J w.A No.l0ll of2025 accordingly, grant permission. In the instant cas(), the competent authority has consiclered the case of the appellant and has rightly grante<i permission to run the educational institution aide proceedings, tiatecl 28.02.2025. Therefore, that portion of the order of the learned Sirrgle ]udge n,here finding is recorded that the permissiorr accorded to the appellant is contrary to Rule 4 of the Ruies, 1993, rnav be set aside arrd let responclent No.1 submit a representatiorr v:ntilating its grievance and it is for the competent authority to r:orsider the same anci pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, by duly taking into consideration the educational needs of that particular locality.

6. Learned Government Pleacler appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6 had conten,lcd that the Writ Appeal can be disposed of by directing the conrpetent authority to consider the representation of respondent No.1-rvrit petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accorclance with lrw.

7. Learneci counsel appearing for respondent No.1 had contended that since the colnpetent authori$ has granted permission to the appellant-school contrary to Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993, the learned 5 AKS..' & VRKR.J W.A No.l0ll o12025 Single Judge was justified in observing that the permission accorded to the appellant is contrary to Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be disrnissed.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the leaned Single Judge l-ras recorded a finding that the permission accordeci to the appellant is contrarv to Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993 issued z,ide G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994. When such a finding is recorded, the competent authoriLy will have no other option except to cancel the permission accorded to the appellant. Therefore, that portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein an observation is made that the permission accorded to the appellant-school to run the ,! educational institution is contrary to Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993 issued ulde G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01J1994, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. The competent authority shall examine the case of respondent No.1 and the appellant strictly in accordance witl'r the Rules, 1993 and also taking into account the (., AKS.J & VRKR.J w-A No.l0l I of2025 I judgment of this Court in Yerram Venkata Reddy,s case (supra), wherein it was clarified by this Court that Rule 4 of the Rules, 1993 issued oide G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, is only a guiding factor, but not mandat()ry, and shall decic.le the representation submitted by respondent No.l and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after hearing the appellar-rt.

9. With the above observatiorrs/directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. Tht:re shall be no order as to costs. Miscellanecus Applications, if any, pending in ihis Writ Appeal shall stand closerl To, i/TRUE COPY' I SD/-A. PRATHIMA \DE\UTY REGISTRAB-, '\ \\ CTION OFFICER

1. The Principa Secretary, Education Department, State of Telangana. St"; retariat, t{yderabad,

2. The Regional Jornt Director, School Education, Hyderabad, TS. 3- The District Eriucation Officer, Collectorate office, Gadwal Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal Distri(1. Telangana.

4. The Mandal Education Officer, Gadwal Mandal, Jogulamaba Gadwal District, Telanagana.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, RDO Office Gadwal Mandal Division, Jogulamaba Gadwal District,Telangana.

6. The Panchayath Secretary, Panchayath office, Veerapuram Gram Panchayat, Jogulamaba C,adwal Dist, Telangana.

7. One CC to SRI CH.JAYAKRISHNA, Advocate IOPUCI 8. One CC to SRI K.SANDEEP KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR TG ZP [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION, High Ccurt for the State of Telangana at tlyderabad [OUT] 1'l .Two CCs to CjP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OtJT]

12. Two CD Co:',ie; HIGH COURI: DATED: 15t0912025 , ':. \ ili-1 15 [tT 265 JUDGMENT WA.No.1011 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS @ 19