Dismissed

A.Harinatha Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Apr 2024WP/2349/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an interim order dismissing a writ petition where school proprietors sought to stop the educational department from granting recognition to new schools in Puttur, arguing it violated norms and caused competition.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

A.Harinatha Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 2349 OF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

A.Harinatha Reddy, S/o A. Govinda Reddy, Correspondent, Jnana Jyothi Vidya Mandir, Swamy Steet Extension, Puttur Town, Tirupathi District- 517 583.

¶11

Dr K. Ramesh, S/o K. Subramanyam Naidu^Correspondent,^SeshaSai High School, Near Sub Court, Tirupathi Road, Puttur Town, Tirupathi Dist.-517 583.

¶12

¶13

1. D. Sadasivam, S/o M. Devaraj^Correspondent, Vivekananda School, New Street, Gate Puttur Puttur Town, Tirupathi^{Dist.-517583.}

¶14

M. Surendra Raju, S/o M. Jaya Chandra Raju Correspondent,^Himaja High School, D.No- 15-179, K.N. Road, Puttur, Tirupathi^Dist. - 517 583.

...PETITIONERS

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amravati.

¶19

The Commissioner of School Education, Vijayawada,^KrishnaDist.

¶20

The Regional Joint Director of School Education, YSR Kadapa Dist.

¶21

The District Educational Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor^Dist.

¶22

The District Educational Officer, Tirupati, Tirupathi^Dist.

¶23

The Deputy Educational Officer, Puttur, Chittoor Dist.

¶24

The Mandal Educational Officer, Puttur, Chittoor^Dist.

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

¶27

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of >WRIT OF MANDAMUS, to declare the acts on the part of the respondents 1 to 7 in seeking to grant Recognition for 3 more new schools, '‘for.the academic year 2024-2025 in Puttur town now under process, without scrupulously following norms as envisaged under G O Ms No. 1, Edn Dt. 1.1.1994 amounts to erroneous, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and it offends several provisions of AP Education Act and consequently direct the 1 to 7 respondents not to accord permission for any new schools for the academic year 2024- 2025ⁱⁿ Puttur town in the interest of justice.

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct 1 to 7 respondents not to accord permission for any new schools for the academic year 2024-2025 in Puttur town pending disposal of the above W.P. in the interest of justice.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. T C KRISHNAN

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER

/ .

& i*

APHC010038532024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶36

[3333]

¶37

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶38

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶41

WRIT PETITION NO: 2349/2024

¶42

Between:

¶43

A.harinatha Reddy and Others

¶44

...PETITIONER(S)

¶45

AND

¶46

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶47

...RESPONDENT{S)

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶49

1.TCKRISHNAN

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent(S);

¶51

1.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP)

¶52

The Court made the following:

*»

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶57

“....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the acts on the part of the respondents 1 to 7 in seeking to grant Recognition for 3 more new schools for the academic year 20242025 in Puttur town now under process without scrupulously following norms as envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.1, Edn Dated 01.01.1994 amounts to erroneous, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and it offends several provisions of A.P. Education Act and consequently direct the respondents^No.1 to 7 not to accord permission for any new schools for the academic year^{20242025inPutturtown...."}

¶58

It is the case of the petitioners that Puttur Town is “D” type town, that there are number of private unaided schools and Government Schools existing in the said Town and the intakes of the said schools have been reducing year by year and that there is absolutely no need to establish any more private schools in Puttur Town for the academic year 2024-25. If any proposals are received for establishment of new schools, the authorities should conduct survey to find out the need for establishment^ofsuch new schools in that locality, as per the guidelines laid^{downinG.O.Ms.No.1dated.} 01.01.1994. It is their further case that earlier, when the authorities proposed to grant permission to two new schools in Puttur Town, without there being any need for the same, the Andhra Pradesh Unaided Schools Management Association filed W.P.No.14819 of 2019 before this Court and the same was disposed of, directing the authorities to consider the representation of the association and other similar representations, after affording personal hearing

¶59

with orders in accordance appropriate concerned, and pass to all the respondents rejected Rules and G.OS. Pursuant thereto, the governing law schools, but granted permission to other of the said two new the applications of the petitioners . Now, it is the grievance schools without following the norms seeking to grant^{recognitiontothreenew} that respondent Nos.1 to 7 are without scrupulously 2024-25 for the academic year schools in Puttur Town dated 01.01.994, which under G.O.Ms.No.1 envisaged following the norms as to respondent Nos.1 to , therefore, seek a direction is arbitrary. The petitioners 2024-25 schools for the academic year 7 not to accord permission for any new in Puttur Town. averments and filed counter denying the petition 3 The 5^*" respondent ino schools in Puttur town and have been running that the petitioners stating of Puttur. It is in and around the town to the students in catering their services official respondents may that the ion of the petitioners only the apprehension without following the of new schools accord permission for establishment . It is further stated that as is for such apprehension rules, and there is no basis and without there for filing the writ petition on date, there is no^{causeofaction} writ petition cannot maintain a of action, the petitioners being any cause and assumptions. The petitioners are not third merely basing on presumptions be competitors to the schools and they will running the parties and they are the same, the order to prevent if established, and in schools, said new not to grant permission to direction to the authorities cannot seek a petitioners ground, earlier, the stated that on the same any new schools. It is further

¶60

¶61

Hon’ble High Court in Coastal Papers Ltd., vs. Government of India and others^, rejected the plea raised by the writ petitioner therein and dismissed the writ petition. In the instant case also, the relief sought for by the writ petitioners is to direct the respondent authorities not to grant any further permissions for establishment of other institutions in Puttur Town and as such the said relief is against to the settled law. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits.

¶62

The petitioners filed reply affidavit to the counter filed by the 5*'" respondent, denying the counter averments and stated that the 5^^ respondent, without following the procedure as envisaged^{underSection20of} the A.P. Education Act, is trying to process the applications^{ofnewschoolsfor} extraneous considerations. There are multiple allegations against the S**" respondent alleging that he is acting contrary to the procedure. It is further stated that the respondent, in the earlier writ petition^{i.e.W.P.No.14819of} 2019, himself admitted that there is no need for establishment of new schools In Puttur Town and when such is the case, he ought not to have proceeded to grant permission for establishment of new schools.

¶63

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and^{thelearnedGovernment} Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

¶64

The grievance raised by the petitioners is with regard to the alleged action of the respondent authorities in seeking to grant permission to new

¶65

^ 1995 (1) ALD 328

¶66

¶67

schools in Puttur Town, without there being any need for the same. However, according to the respondent authorities, as on date, the writ petition is filed only on mere apprehension and there is no cause of action for the petitioners. It is also the contention of the respondents that the petitioners are seeking a relief not to grant permission to new schools in the locality, only with a malafide intention to avoid competition in the field and seeking such relief is not permissible under law.

¶68

In “Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir^Ahmed and others^”, the Hon’ble Apex Court under similar circumstances, while dealing with the plea of the appellant therein against setting up of a rival cinema hall in the town causing pecuniary harm to his^{businessonaccountof} completion, held as follows:

¶69

“47. Thus, in substance, the appellant's stand is that the setting up of a rival cinema house in the to\A/n will adversely affect his, monopolistic commercial interest, causing pecuniary harm and loss of business from competition. Such harm or loss is not wrongful in the eye of law, because it does not result in injury to a legal right or a legally protected, interest, the business competition causing it being a lawful activity. Juridical, harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria, the term injuria being here used in its true sense of an act contrary to law. 1 The reason why the law suffers a person knowingly to inflict harm of this description on another, without holding him accountable for it, is that such harm done to an individual is a gain to society at large.

¶70

In the light of the above discussion, it is demonstrably^clearthat the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legal right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned order does not operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully

^ (1976) 1 see 671

affect his title to something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He has, suffered no legal grievance. He has no legal peg for a Justiciable claim to hang on. Therefore he is not a 'person aggrieved' and has no locus standi to ” challenge the grant of the No Objection Certificate.

¶75

In the instant case also, the petitioners have been running schools in Puttur Town and they seek the relief of a direction to the authorities not to grant permission to new schools, which is nothing but avoiding competitors to enter the field. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the business competition being a lawful activity, the loss or harm which the petitioners may sustain in their business on account of establishment of new schools, if any, is not wrongful in the eye of law and it does not result in injury to a legal right or a legally protected interest. In similar circumstances, this Court, earlier in W.P.No.7045 of 2024, taking note of the above observations made in the case of “Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others have dismissed the said writ petition, by order^dated 24.04.2024. Following the same principle, the present writ petition is also dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶76