Disposed

P.Balasubramaniam, v. the State Rep.by Its Principal

Madras HC23 Mar 2015WP(MD)/3944/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A public interest litigant sought a writ of mandamus directing school authorities to upgrade an existing middle school to a high school on allotted land. The Court held it could not interfere with administrative discretion absent a violation of fundamental rights. It directed the petitioner to approach the authorities via representation, which they must consider according to law.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of and the petitioner was directed to approach the concerned authorities by way of making a representation.

P.Balasubramaniam, Vs the State Rep.by Its Principal — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.03.2015

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI

¶5

W.P(MD)No.3944 of 2015 and MP 1 & 2 of 2015 P.Balasubramaniam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St., George, Chennai.

¶6

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai. 3.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai.

¶7

4.The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary) College Road, Chennai.

¶8

5.The Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶9

6.The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶10

7.The Tahsildar, Dindigul.

¶11

8.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul.

¶12

9.The Inspector of Police, Oddanchathiram Police Station, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to accord appropriate permission and take appropriate and necessary steps to start a High School or to upgrade the existing middle school at Aranmanai Pudur Village Pudhuchathiram Panchayat to that of High School at Pudhuchathiram Village Dindigul District in the lands earmarked for the said purpose at S.Nos.378/142, Palakkanoothu Village, Dindigul District. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manikandan @ Iyyappan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, Special Government Pleader.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN,J)

¶18

This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant permission and take necessary steps to start a High School or to upgrade the existing middle school at Aranmanai Pudur Village, Pudhuchathiram Panchayat to that of High School at Pudhuchathiram Village Dindigul District in the land earmarked for the said purpose at S.Nos.378/142, Palakkanoothu Village, Dindigul District.

¶19

2.It is seen that the petitioner has sought for an order directing the authorities who are the respondents 1 to 5 to grant permission for staring High School or to upgrade the existing middle school in a particular land. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land was already allotted by the Government for the purpose of constructing a High School.

¶20

3.It cannot be disputed that the Government is empowered to decide whether it should be a middle school or High School or Higher Secondary School. Unless there is violation of any subsisting right or fundamental right to raise a plea in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, this Court cannot interfere with the administration of the Government, as the same has to be done according to law. However, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that already land was allotted for the construction of a High School, we find it just and reasonable to permit the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities by way of making representation and in such circumstances, the authorities shall pass appropriate orders considering the representation if any being submitted by the petitioner according to law.

¶21

4.With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 are closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/

¶24

Sub- Assistant Registrar To

¶25

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Fort St., George, Chennai.

¶26

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai.

¶27

3.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai.

¶28

4.The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary) College Road,Chennai.

¶29

5.The Chief Educational Officer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶30

¶31

6.The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶32

7.The Tahsildar, Dindigul. 8.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul. 9.The Inspector of Police, Oddanchathiram Police Station, Dindigul District. +1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No.14228 +1cc to Mr.S.Manikandan, Advocate in SR.No. 14348 sm:13.04.2015:3P/12C

¶33

W.P(MD)No.3944 of 2015 23.03.2015

¶34

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

P.Balasubramaniam, v. the State Rep.by Its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Balasubramaniam, v. the State Rep.by Its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thangavel, Vs the Supdt. of Police

A.Sithan Vs the Superintendent of Police

I.Sabeer Mohamed Vs the Principal Secretary

International Srivaishnava Vs the Commissioner

O.Kodiyarasan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Kalimuthan, Vs the Principal District Judge