S.Sanjeevi Joseph v. The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 07-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.4556 of 2009 andM.P.No.2 of 2009S.Sanjeevi Joseph.. Petitioner.Versus1.The Director of Elementary Education,Chennai-6.2.The District Elementary Education Officer,Vellore Fort, Vellore-4.3.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer,Katpadi Range, having office at Kalpudhur Village,Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District... Respondents.Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the 2nd respondent'sproceedings in Na.Ka.No.4686/A2/2008, dated 14.2.2009, and quashthe same and direct the respondents 2 and 3 to hand over themanagement of Morning Star Central Aided Higher Elementary School,at Thirupakuttai Village, Katpadi Taluk. For Petitioner : Mr.R.MargabandhuFor Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government PleaderO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Additional Government Pleader appearing for therespondents.2. This writ petition had been filed by the petitioner prayingfor a Writ of Certioraririfed Mandamus, to call for and quash therecords pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent,dated 14.2.2009, by which direct payment of the grant had beenordered and for a direction to the second the third respondents tohand over the management of the Morning Star Central Aided HigherElementary School, Thirupakuttai Village, Katpadi Taluk, VelloreDistrict, to the petitioner. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner's father hadestablished the Morning Star Central Aided Higher ElementarySchool (hereafter referred to as `the School') from classes 1 to 5,at Thirupakuttai Village, in the year 1949. In the year 1954,classes 6 to 8 were started and they have been functioning, tilldate. The Government had granted aid for running the school and thegrants were disbursed through the petitioner's father, till the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ year 1996. Thereafter, by virtue of a Will executed by the fatherof the petitioner, the management of the School had beentransferred to the petitioner. Thereafter, the grants were beingdisbursed through the petitioner, till 20.4.1999. However, thepetitioner's brother, Sigamani George, had filed a suit inO.S.No.730 of 1995, on the file of the District Munsif Court,Gudiyattam, claiming the right of management of the School. Thesuit had been transferred to Vellore District and it was re-numbered as O.S.No.232 of 2000. Due to the dispute raised by thepetitioner's brother, direct payment of the amounts was being made.However, since the petitioner's brother had died the suit had beendismissed, as it had abated. Thereafter, the first respondent hadissued an order, dated 22.12.2003, permitting the petitioner, todraw the government grants and to disburse the salary to the staff.While so, the second respondent had issued the impugnedproceedings, dated 14.2.2009, served on the petitioner, on3.3.2009, in Na.Ka.No.4686/A2/2008, dated 14.2.2009, to make directpayments of the grants. In such circumstances, the petitioner haspreferred the present writ petition before this Court, underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.4. The main contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that the second respondent does not have the power orjurisdiction to issue the impugned proceedings, dated 14.2.2009.Since the said proceedings had been issued without giving anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it is illegal and void.There is no dispute between the petitioner and his brother atpresent, since the suit, in O.S.No.232 of 2000, had been dismissed,on 19.11.2003, due to the death of the petitioner's brother, on29.12.2000. Since the management of the school had been transferredto the petitioner by way of a registered Will, dated 1.9.1995,executed by the father of the petitioner, the petitioner isentitled to manage the School, including the right to disburse thegrants to the teaching staff and to the employees of the school. 5. Further, by the impugned proceedings, dated 14.2.2009, thesecond respondent had interfered with the petitioner's right ofmanagement of the school, arbitrarily, without following theprinciples of natural justice. Further, Section 18-A of the TamilNadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973, is applicableto the present case, as the making of direct payments of the grantsis equivalent to the taking over of the management, by appointing aSpecial Officer. Such a power is vested only with the StateGovernment and it cannot be exercised by the second respondent.Even otherwise, the management can be taken over by an order of theState Government only for reasons of mal administration or forserious lapses or irregularities committed by the management of theSchool. Even such a power should be exercised by the Government,only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected party.The learned counsel had also submitted that no show cause noticehad been issued by the respondents before the impugned proceedingshad been passed. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the secondrespondent, dated 14.2.2009, is arbitrary, ilegal and void.6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshad submitted that the impugned order, dated 14.2.2009, of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondent, had been issued under special circumstances.Since civil cases, with regard to the management of the School, arepending the second respondent had passed the order making directpayment of salaries and other emoluments to the staff of theSchool. Notices had been issued to the petitioner before theimpugned order had been passed. The proceedings of the secondrespondent, dated 14.2.2009, is in accordance with the rules andregulations applicable to the School and its management. Hence, thewrit petition is devoid of merits. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondentsand on a perusal of the records available, it is seen that certaindisputes had arisen with regard to the management of the MorningStar Central Aided Higher Elementary School and certain suits hadbeen filed before the concerned Civil Courts in that regard. Eventhough the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted thatthe civil suit filed by the brother of the petitioner in O.S.No.232of 2000, had been dismissed, on 19.11.2003, the learned counsel forthe respondents had submitted that the dispute has not beenresolved, finally. 8. The impugned proceedings, dated 14.2.2009, issued by thesecond respondent, is not with regard to the taking over of themanagement of the School, as claimed by the petitioner. It onlyrelates to the making of direct payments to the staff of theSchool, since many unresolved issues had arisen, with regard to therunning of the School. Even though the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the respondents had submitted that show cause notices hadbeen sent to the petitioner before the impugned proceedings, dated14.2.2009, had been passed by the second respondent, no recordshave been shown to substantiate the claim. 9. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered viewthat it would meet the ends of justice if the impugned proceedingsof the second respondent, dated 14.2.2009, is set aside, making itclear that it is open to the respondents to issue a show causenotice to the petitioner, as per the procedures established by law,giving fifteen days time to the petitioner to reply to the saidnotice, along with the necessary records, to establish his claims.On receipt of the explanation from the petitioner the concernedauthority is to pass appropriate orders thereon, considering theclaims of the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law,within a period of thirty days thereafter. Further, it is madeclear that until the impugned proceedings of the second respondent,dated 14.2.2009, is revised, modified, withdrawn, or set aside bythe appropriate authorities empowered to do so, in accordance withthe procedures established by law, as noted above, it wouldcontinue to be in operation. The writ petition is orderedaccordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cshTo1.The Director of Elementary Education,Chennai-6.2.The District Elementary Education Officer,Vellore Fort, Vellore-4.3.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer,Katpadi Range, having office at Kalpudhur Village,Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.1 cc To Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahamed, Advocate, SR.290961 cc To Mr.R.Margabandhu, Advocate, SR.292261 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.29255Writ Petition No.4556 of 2009PKB(CO)SRA(24/7/2009)