Disposed

M/S. Euro Kids Karumathampatti v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC9 Jun 2014WP/14165/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding school recognition, the High Court directed the educational authorities to consider the petitioner's re-submitted application dated 27.05.2014 within three weeks. Without approval, the petitioner cannot admit students for the academic year 2014-15.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the representation dated 27.05.2014 and pass orders on merits within three weeks. Admission prohibited without approval.

M/S. Euro Kids Karumathampatti Vs the State of Tamil… — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.06.2014

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

W.P. No. 14165 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2014

¶6

M/s.Euro Kids Karumathampatti Franchise rep.by its Correspondent Mr.C.Sivaraman having registered office at No.199, 1st Street, Sarathambal Nagar Karumathampatti Village Coimbatore 641 659. ...Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary to Government Elementary Education Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The Director of Elementary Education College Road, Nungambakkam Chennai -6. 3. The District Elementary Education Officer Coimbatore. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.5118/A5/2014 dated 12.05.2014; to quash the same and to direct the respondents to accord recognition for the petitioner's school to run the Nursery School for the academic year 2014-15 within a reasonable time. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.R.A.S.Sakthivel Additional Government Pleader

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.5118/A5/2014 dated 12.05.2014; to quash the same and to direct the respondents to accord recognition for the petitioner's school to run the Nursery School for the academic year 2014-15 within a reasonable time.

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶11

2.Heard, Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.R.A.S.Sakthivel, learned Additional Government Pleader, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

3.The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the third respondent, in and by which, the petitioner's application seeking recognition to run the Nursery School for the academic year 2014-15 has been rejected.

¶13

According to the petitioner, the petitioner's application for recognition was rejected by the third respondent on the ground that certain details in the application form was not filled up by the petitioner and they also do not have full one acre of land for running the nursery school. According to the petitioner, as per the Rules in force, there is no specific area provided for running a Nursery school. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the receipt of the impugned order, the petitioner has re-submitted the application on 27.05.2014 after complying with all the requirements. Since the same has not been considered the present writ petition has been filed.

¶14

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would now state that the petitioner restricts its prayer only to the limited extent of considering the application submitted by them on 27.05.2014 after the rejection order dated 12.05.2014 and that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the same within a time frame. He would further submit that the petitioner is not challenging the impugned rejection order dated 12.05.2014.

¶15

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would contend that the petitioner has not complied with the norms prescribed for running the nursery school as they do not have one acre of land for according recognition. It is further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.49 (Education) dated 01.03.2007, it is mandatory to have one acre of land to run a school in the Town Panchayat. He would also submit that the petitioner is running the school for the past two years without any recognition and that the third respondent is ready to take steps to close the school at the end of the academic year to prevent them from admitting any children for

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

the academic year 2014-2015 as, as of today, they are not entitled to run the school. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the respondents will consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.05.2014 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶18

Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has now restricted its prayer, especially, to consider the representation dated 27.05.2014 submitted after the impugned rejection order in accordance with law, the respondents are duty bound to consider the same provided that the petitioner satisfies all the norms and requirements as prescribed under the Rules.

¶19

Considering the submissions made on either side, the respondents are directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner dated 27.05.2014 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it is otherwise in order. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not admit any students for the academic year 2014-15 without the approval of the respondents and without getting recognition.

¶20

With the above direction and observation, this Writ
Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
Dated: .06.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Elementary Education Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Nungambakkam
Chennai -6.
3. The District Elementary Education Officer
Coimbatore.
1 CC to Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate SR.No.23383
1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR.No.23539
W.P. No.14165 of 2014
CNR(CO)
JJM (16.06.2014)

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S. Euro Kids Karumathampatti v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Euro Kids Karumathampatti v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chennai Port Stevedores Assn, Vs Ministry of Shipping

E.Sekar Vs the Secretary

J.Jayakrishnan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

K.Shanmugasundaram, Vs the District Civil Supply

Attavanai Ena Makkal Vs the Secretary to Govt

M/S.Innovasia Media Solutions Vs the Tamilnadu Road Development