The Mangement of St Mary Farthima Vs the State of Ap

THE MANGEMENT OF ST MARY FARTHIMA, AIDED HIGH SCHOOL, NANDYAL, NANDYALDISTRICT.REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENTS, K.A.PRAKASH S/O. SHATHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KURAVAPETA, R/O. ST.MARYFATHIMA HIGH SCHOOL. ...PETITIONER

¶10

A N D

¶11

THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA, A.P

¶14

THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the Maintenance Grant

¶17

SRK, J W.P.No.7799 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

@ 6 percent to the Petitioner institution for the years 2015-2020 despite this Hon'ble Court categorically held that the managements are entitled M.G. Grant @ 6 percent of the Grant in Aid as being arbitrary, illegal, violating Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by setting-aside the impugned orders R.C.No.5049-1/B5/MG/ 2023 dt 17-01-2025 passed by the DEO,R5 rejecting to release MG Grant for the academic years 2015-2020 only the ground of delay and consequently direct the respondents particularly R5 to release the Maintenance Grant @ 6 percent due to the institution for the years 2015-2020 and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

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 to direct the respondents to release the balance of Maintenance Grant to be paid to the Petitioner institution @ of 6% for the years 2015-2020 by suspending the impugned order R.C.No.5049-1/B5/MG/2023 dt: 17-01-2025 passed by the DEO, R5 and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.K N VIJAYA LAXMI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

¶26

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

SRK, J W.P.No.7799 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief:

¶32

<…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not releasing the Maintenance Grant @ 6% to the petitionerInstitution for the years 2015-2020 despite this Court categorically held that the Managements are entitled to M.G. Grant @ 6% of the Grant-in-Aid, as being arbitrary, illegal, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by setting-aside the impugned order in R.C.No.5049-1/B5/MG/2023, dated 17.01.2025 passed by the DEO, R5 rejecting to release MG Grant for the Academic Years 20152020 only on the ground of delay and consequently direct the respondents particularly R5 to release the Maintenance Grant @ 6% due to the petitioner-Institution for the Academic Years 2015-2020 and passed order or such other orders …=

¶33

2. Contents of the affidavit filed by the Correspondent of

¶34

the petitioner-Institution, in brief, are that the petitioner-Institution was started in the year 1954 with Upper Primary Classes I to VII, Telugu Medium and Grant-in-Aid was also granted by the Government; that in the year 1975, the competent authority granted permission for High School with Classes VIII, IX and X; that initially, the petitioner-institution was granted permanent recognition for Classes I to VII, and in respect of Classes VIII to X, recognition was granted for ten (10) years i.e. for the Academic Years 2010-2011 to 2019-2020; that the respondent No.4 issued Proceedings vide R.C.No.00682/B2/21, dated 04.02.2021 granting renewal of

¶35

SRK, J W.P.No.7799 of 2025

¶36

4

¶37

recognition for Classes VIII to X for the Academic Years from 20212022 to 2022-2023.

¶38

(b) The Government is giving 6% Maintenance Grant for each Academic Year; that the petitioner-Institution filed Writ Petition No.7079 of 2021 before this Court for not releasing the grant-in-aid and this Court, vide Order, dated 16.03.2021, disposed of, the said Writ Petition, directing the respondents to release the Maintenance Grant; that for the Academic Years 2015-2016 to 2019-2020, an amount of Rs.13,45,343/- to be released to the petitioner-Institution towards Maintenance Grant, but the respondents released only Rs.4,42,791/- and the respondents are yet to pay the balance amount of Rs.13,45,343/-.

¶39

(c) The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.30150 of 2023 before this Court and the same was disposed of, on 21.10.2024, holding that the claim of petitioner-Institution is within the limitation, as prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Act, 1995 and accordingly, the petitioner-Institution is entitled for the relief as sought for. But when the application is made for release of Maintenance Grant before respondent authorities, the impugned Order R.C.No.5049-1/B5/MG/2023, dated 17.01.2025 was passed relying on Rule 20 of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, stating that

¶40

SRK, J W.P.No.7799 of 2025

¶41

5

¶42

the petitioner-Institution is not entitled for release of Maintenance Grant for the years 2015-2016 to 2019-2020.

¶43

(d) The Maintenance Grant provided by the respondent authorities is to meet the expenditure of menial staff, rent, taxes, repairs, stationery, furniture and other miscellaneous expenses etc. Initially, the schools are entitled to receive the maintenance grant at 10%, however, the same was reduced to 6% and this Court vide Order in Writ Appeal No.963 of 1991, directed the respondent authorities to release the grant at 6% of the basic pay of teaching grant that is being drawn from year to year. While the matter stood thus, in the year 1994, the Government reduced the maintenance grant to 2% by way of G.O.Ms.No.320, dated 16.09.1994 and this Court vide Order, dated 19.03.1997 in Writ Petition No.20160 of 1994 struck off the said G.O., declaring the same as unconstitutional and the said Order was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.526 of 1997 and the Government was directed to release grant-in-aid at 6%. The subject issue was settled by this Court in Writ Petition No.3449 of 2003 vide Order, dated 30.09.2016, wherein, the said act of respondent authorities was declared as arbitrary and discriminatory. The Order of the learned Single Judge was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court

¶44

SRK, J W.P.No.7799 of 2025

¶45

6

¶46

in Writ Appeal No.1296 of 2016 and also the Hon’ble Supreme

¶47

Court in S.L.P.No.31292 of 2018. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶48

Respondent No.5 filed counter-affidavit, denying the contents of the affidavit filed accompanying Writ Petition, contending inter alia that 5^th respondent issued Order vide Proceedings Rc.No.839/B5/MG/2025, dated 03.04.2025 stating that the Correspondent of the petitioner-Institution had not submitted the Audit Reports for the years 2015-2016 to 2019-2020 as per Rule 20 of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994; that the Government passed an Enactment 34 of 2007, as per which, no arrears claim for Maintenance Grant shall be allowed beyond a period of three years from the date on which it becomes due and all such arrear claims shall lapse automatically; that unless and until the petitioner submits the Audit Reports before 30^th September of every Financial Year, Maintenance Grant cannot be released and the petitioner-Institution, without even making an attempt to furnish the same, filed the present Writ Petition, which cannot be entertained. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶49

The petitioner-Institution filed reply-affidavit stating that the petitioner-Institution filed the required papers before the respondents, stating year-wise claims to the respondents, which was stamped by 5^th respondent, and pursuant of the same,

¶50

SRK, J W.P.No.7799 of 2025

¶51

7

¶52

respondent No.5 issued R.C.No.8354/Auditor/2020, dated 07.01.2022 directing the Correspondent of the petitioner-Institution to go through the Audit Report and rectify the defects pointed out by the Auditor and to submit Rectification Report.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Nerella S.V.Ravi Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education representing respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance representing respondent No.2. Perused the entire material on record.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Institution placed the copy of the Order passed by the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.3449 of 2003, dated 30.09.2016. A perusal of the said order goes to show that the learned Single Judge allowed the said Writ Petition in similar circumstances. The relevant paragraphs of the said Order read as under (Paragraph Nos.21 & 22):

¶55

<21. In any view of the matter, the contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance grant in view of G.O.Ms.No.320, which was struck down by the court in the judgments referred supra. Even otherwise the discriminatory attitude of the Government giving concession to one education institution and denying benefit to the petitioner’s educational institution cannot be encouraged by the Courts, since it is arbitrary and discriminatory in not releasing grant in aid to the petitioner’s association whose object is to

¶56

SRK, J W.P.No.7799 of 2025

¶57

8

¶58

provide free education. In those circumstances, this Court has no option except to hold that the action of the respondents is arbitrary in not releasing the maintenance grant in aid to the petitioner’s educational institution and consequently, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits as decided in Recognized Schools Managements Associations case. Hence, the respondents are directed to work out maintenance grant @ 6% and arrange to pay the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the petitioner’s educational institution, on par with other schools.

¶59

22. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is

¶60

allowed.=

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Institution brought to the notice of this Court that the matter in Writ Petition No.3449 of 2003 was carried in appeal vide Writ Appeal No.1296 of 2016 and a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad dismissed the appeal vide Judgment, dated 03.08.2018, confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3449 of 2003. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.31292 of 2018 preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the Order, dated 03.08.2018 in Writ Appeal No.1296 of 2016, was also dismissed vide Order, dated 14.12.2018. Therefore, he prays the Court to pass similar orders in this Writ Petition also.

¶62

SRK, J W.P.No.7799 of 2025

¶63

9

¶64

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education would contend that the petitioner-Institution has not submitted the Audit Reports for the years 2015-2016 to 2019-2020 certified by the Chartered Accountant which is mandated as per Rule 20 of the G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 and without submission of Administrative Reports as prescribed, within statutory time, claim of the Maintenance Grant by the petitioner-Institution is not permissible. Therefore, it is not feasible to release the Maintenance Grant for the years 2015-2016 to 20192020.

¶65

Indisputably, the petitioner-Institution, prior to filing of the present Writ Petition, filed Writ Petition No.30150 of 2024 praying the Court to direct the respondents to release the Maintenance Grant at the rate of 6% to the petitioner-Institution for the years 2015-2020. This Court, vide Common Order dated 21.10.2024 in Writ Petition No.30150 of 2024 and Batch held that the claim of the petitioners is within the limitation as prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Act, 1995 and hence, the petitioners are entitled for such relief not beyond the said relief .

¶66

A perusal of the impugned Order passed by 5^th respondent in Rc.No.5049-1/B5/MG/2023, dated 17.01.2025, it was

¶67

SRK, J W.P.No.7799 of 2025

¶68

10

¶69

stated that the Correspondent of petitioner-Institution had not submitted the Audit Reports for the years 2015-2016 to 2019-2020 as per Rule 20 of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 and hence, the representation of petitioner-Institution, dated 23.11.2022 was disposed of, informing that it is not feasible for release of the Maintenance Grant for the years 2015-2016 to 2019-2020.

¶70

Indeed, a perusal of material available on record goes to show that 5^th respondent vide Rc.No.8354/Auditor/2020, dated 07.01.2022, communicated to the Correspondent of petitionerInstitution with an instruction to go through the Audit Report submitted by the petitioner-Institution for the year 2010-2011 to 2019-2020 and rectify the defects pointed out by the Auditor and directed to submit the rectification report immediately.

¶71

In view of the same, having regard to the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the Order, dated 30.09.2016 in Writ Petition No.3449 of 2003, which was upheld by a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.1296 of 2016 vide Order, dated 03.08.2018 and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.31292 of 2018, and further, having regard to the Common Order, dated 21.10.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.30150 of 2023 and batch, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner-

¶72

SRK, J W.P.No.7799 of 2025

¶73

11

¶74

Institution to submit the Rectification Report, in case if not submitted, as instructed by 5^th respondent in Rc.No.8354/Auditor/ 2020, dated 07.01.2022, to the authority concerned for verification. As and when the petitioner-Institution submits the same, the respondent authorities are directed to pay Maintenance Grant at 6% to the petitioner-Institution. The entire process shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶75

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶76

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.

¶77

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶78

7^th January, 2026.

¶79

DNB

The Mangement of St Mary Farthima v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Mangement of St Mary Farthima v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kanaka Durga Constructions Vs the State of Ap

V Savitri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Movva Babu Rao Vs the State of Ap

B. Venkata Ramanaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Singareddy Nagireddy Educational Society Vs Kona Sasidhar

Pudi Chaitanya, S/o. Pudi Sai Shankar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.