The High Court of Madras dismissed a PIL filed by a former office bearer alleging mismanagement and unauthorized construction at a school. The Court held that the petition was a disguised private dispute with the society and constituted an abuse of process.
Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000 to Respondents 6 and 7.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.09.2014
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
W.P.No.23800 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 to 4 of 2014
M.V.Ramani .. Petitioner
vs
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Private School Fee
Determination Committee,
D.M.S. Complex, College Road,
Chennai.
2. The District Collector,
Singaravelar Maligai,
Chennai.
3. The Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai.
4. The Director of Matriculations School,
College Road, Chennai.
5. The Inspector of Matriculations School,
Egmore, Chennai.
6. The President,
Sri Ram Samaj (Educational Agency),
No.47, Ariya Gowda Road,
West Mambalam, Chennai.
7. The Principal,
Sri Sitaram Vidyalaya Matriculations
Higher Secondary School,
Ramakrishnapuram 1st Street,
West Mambalam, Chennai.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 6 and 7 from in any manner running the school Sri Sitaram Vidyalaya Matriculation Higher Secondary School beyond the academic year 201314 and to direct the respondents 6 and 7 to refund the excess fee collected from the children of the 7th respondent since 2010-11 up to date within the time frame to be stipulated by this Court and to direct the respondents 2, 3 and 8 to initiate proceedings to seal and consequently demolish the existing superstructure where Sri Sitaram Vidyala Matriculation Higher Secondary School is run.
For Respondents .. Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy Govt. Pleader for RR1 to 5 and 9 .. Mr.Satish Parasaran for RR6 and 7 .. Mr.C.Johnson for R-8
O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petitioner claims to be a social activist doing charitable work as a "strict qualified bachelor". The petitioner is a life member of the 6th respondent society/Samaj, which is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that there has been mismanagement of the society since 2003 and that the governing body members of the society were elected every year. One of the activities started by the society is to establish the 7th respondent school, which is alleged to have lost its recognition since 31.05.2012. The school is stated to be having a strength of 2000 students with teaching and non-teaching staff, who are stated to have filed a writ petition seeking directions against the school management to implement the Pay Commission recommendations.
3.The petitioner claims that the managing committee of the school is not properly constituted and proper sanctions have not been obtained from C.M.D.A., with the result that the superstructure is unauthorised, though the school is being run since 1987. It is the case of the petitioner that there is danger to the life of the students.
4.The petitioner states that he has been raising his voice for the welfare of the children and the teaching staff, as many people do not know its "hidden secret". The petitioner was also aggrieved by the fixation of fee by the school and thus, moved the first respondent.
5.The petitioner also makes allegations about the funds raised by the society and claims that though he was elected as an office bearer of the society in 2003, he was subsequently removed from the primary membership, which was assailed by him by filing a writ petition. Peace was brokered and he was restored as a life time member.
6.The petitioner has been writing to various authorities and now seeks action against the school in view of the judgment in Kumbakonam's case.
7.The prayers made in the writ petition are:
a. that 6th and 7th respondents (President and Principal) should be restrained from running the school beyond the academic year 2013-14;
b. to ask 6th and 7th respondents to refund the excess fee collected since 2010-11;
c. to direct the respondent authorities to initiate proceedings to seal and demolish the existing structure.
8.We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7.
9.Learned counsel for the 6th and 7th respondents states that the petitioner's approach has always been destructive and he has been initiating one proceedings or the other to completely stall the functioning of the society, which is made of salaried people, who had set it up to carry out voluntary social activities. Fed up with the attitude of the petitioner, the society was even willing to let him perform the tasks and he was made as a secretary from 20.10.2013, from which the petitioner claims to have resigned on 22.07.2014. The petitioner, in fact, simultaneously pleads his resignation, an unceremonious exit.
10.We may notice that the present petition is styled as a Public Interest Litigation and the petition is replete with the allegations qua functioning of 6th respondent society. It is clearly a case where the society stands on one side while the petitioner on the other. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the functioning of the 6th respondent society, the remedy lies before the Registrar of Societies, as the society is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner has tried to give a colour of Public Interest Litigation to a purely private dispute, where he appears to
be unable to function with the other members of the society and despite peace being brokered earlier and the reins being handed over to the petitioner, things did not improve.
11.We are not really commenting on the issue of fixation of fee, which is within the domain of the first respondent or the construction, if it is unauthorised, as that is for the C.M.D.A. to act. All that we are concerned with, however, is the completely improper endeavour to fight a private battle through the P.I.L., which must be condemned. This is not the objective with which the jurisdiction of P.I.L. was devised.
12.We, thus, find the endeavour for the P.I.L. a complete abuse of process of proceedings and dismiss the writ petition with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- payable to respondent nos.6 and 7. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions also stand dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
Dated: 08.09.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
W.P.No.23765 of 2014
KU(CO)
JJM (08.09.2014)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed by a private aggrieved member alleging internal societal disputes can be styled as a Public Interest Litigation.
Whether the Court can allow a Private Interest Litigation masquerading as PIL in a dispute between a society member and the society management.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.V. Ramani
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Private School Fee Determination Committee
The District Collector
The Secretary to Government, Department of School Education
The Director of Matriculations School
The Inspector of Matriculations School
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
M. Sathyananayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
