Allowed

Blooming Buds Junior School v. Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

Kerala HC6 Oct 2021WP(C)/5090/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hindi Court held that the petitioner preprimary school may file an application for recognition before the DEO, Thamarassery. The Court directed the petitioner to file such an application within ten days and mandated the reporting and decision-making timeline for the respondent authorities.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file application for recognition before the DEO, Thamarassery within 10 days; direct authorities to consider and decide within specified timelines.

Blooming Buds Junior School Vs Kerala State… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 5090 OF 2021 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943

¶6

WP(C) NO. 5090 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

BLOOMING BUDS JUNIOR SCHOOL, CHURCH ROAD, KOODARANHI, REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SMT. JULIE THOMAS, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O. THOMAS, PENNAPARAMBIL, KOODARANHI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 604.

¶9

BY ADV C.K.SREEJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS, REP BY CHAIRMAN, TC 14/2036, VANROSS JUNCTION, KERALA UNIVERSITY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT-673 001.

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICE, PAVAMONY ROAD, THAZHEKKOD, CALICUT-673 004.

¶14

4 THE HEADMASTER, ST.SEBASTIANS L.P.SCHOOL, KOODARANHI, KOZHIKODE-673 604.

¶15

5 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶16

6 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 5090 OF 2021 2

¶18

*7 ADDL.R7. THE DEO, THAMARASSERY.

¶19

ADDL.R7 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 06-10-2021 IN W.P.(C)

¶20

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO. 5090 OF 2021 3

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Blooming Buds Junior School, a school functioning within the limits of Koodaranhi through its Principal has approached this Court seeking directions

¶25

to the 2nd respondent to accept and dispose of Ext.P5 application submitted on 18.02.2021 before the 3rd respondent.

¶26

The petitioner contends that they have been running the preprimary school from the year 2011 and that it was when demands were made by the parents that they decided to upgrade the school. In the said circumstances, they have submitted Ext.P5 application before the DEO. Since no action was taken, they have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶27

(i) issue writ of mandamus or such other writ or order quashing Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent.

¶28

(ii) issue writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to accept and dispose of the Ext.P5 enabling the petitioner to get approval for the school as applied for.

¶29

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction to the respondent not to take any further action till the Ext.P5 is disposed off.

¶30

WP(C) NO. 5090 OF 2021 4

¶31

A statement has been filed by the DEO, Thamarassery as directed by this Court on 29.06.2021. According to the DEO, no application in the nature of Ext.P5 is pending before the authorities. It is also stated that the challenge mounted by the petitioner against Ext.P4 order also cannot be sustained as the school is functioning without any recognition or concurrence from the competent authority.

¶32

The petitioner has placed on record Ext.P7 information received

¶33

from the office of the Deputy Director of Education under the Right To Information Act. It is borne out from Ext.P7 that the petitioner had in fact submitted an application on 18.6.2021 seeking recognition and that the said application was forwarded to the DEO, Kozhikode.

¶34

Sri. C.K.Sreejith, the learned counsel submitted that in view of Ext.P7, the contention raised by the DEO, Thamarassery, in the statement filed by him cannot be correct. The learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioner has no difficulty in submitting a fresh application before the DEO, Thamarassery, who is the jurisdictional authority and the request is to issue necessary directions to the said authority to consider the application and take a decision.

¶35

The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that if

¶36

a fresh application is filed before the DEO, Thamarassry, there cannot be any impediment in considering the same. It is however submitted that the DEO,

¶37

WP(C) NO. 5090 OF 2021 5

¶38

Thamarassery is not a party to the proceeding.

¶39

The DEO, Thamarassery is suo motu impleaded as additional 7th

¶40

respondent. The learned Government pleader shall take notice.

¶41

8. I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶42

Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the Bar, there will be a direction to the petitioner to file an application seeking recognition before the DEO, Thamarassery within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any such application is received, the DEO, Thamarassery shall consider the same and follow the procedure envisaged under law. The report/opinion shall be forwarded to the 5th respondent within a further period of one month. The 5th respondent shall take a decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of report/ opinion from the DEO, Thamarassery.

¶43

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

¶48

WP(C) NO. 5090 OF 2021 6

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5090/2021

¶50

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:

¶51

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE HEADMASTER/4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 15.5.19. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 24.5.2019. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 20.6.2019. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 7.9.2020. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 18.2.2021 SUBMITTED THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CALICUT.

¶52

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

Blooming Buds Junior School v. Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Blooming Buds Junior School v. Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smitha v. Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, St. George'S Mount High School Vs State of Kerala

Balagopalan, Vs the State of Kerala

P Padmaja Devi Vs State of Kerala

Sreepathy Institute of Management and Technology Vs State of Kerala

Pattayil Kunjukunju Memorial Charitable Trust Vs State of Kerala