Allowed

St.Marys Matriculation School v. The Directorate of

Madras HC28 Aug 2018WP/21949/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It directed the Respondent to process the petitioner's application for renewal of recognition without insisting upon Building Plan approval from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, following settled judicial precedents.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to process the application for continuation of recognition without insisting upon building plan approval from DTCP and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

St.Marys Matriculation School Vs The Directorate of — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.08.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.No.21949 of 2018

¶6

St.Mary's Matriculation School, Represented by Correspondent P.Ganesan, Vengal,

¶7

Karur Main Road,

¶8

Karur District-639 116

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

The Directorate of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus,

College Road,

Chennai-600 006.

... Respondent

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to process the Application dated 14.02.2018 of the petitioner for Renewal of Recognition without insisting upon Building Plan approval from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) in view of settled proposition of law within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. E.Vijay Anand

¶17

For Respondents : Mrs.V. Annalakshmi,

¶18

Government Advocate

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondent to process the application of the petitioner, for continuation of recognition till X standard without insisting upon building plan approval from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), in view of precedence settled by this Court in other similar cases.

¶21

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

¶22

In similar cases, this Court by and order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.No.16697 2018, etc., batch of cases, has disposed of the Writ Petitions, directing the respondent therein to consider the applications, seeking for approval without insisting upon the production building plan approval from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning.

¶23

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has no objection for passing similar orders in this case also.

¶24

4.In the above said W.P., this Court has passed the following order:

¶25

“2. When the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is covered by the order dated 04.07.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15334 of 2017, wherein, this Court has directed the Respondent(s) therein to consider the petitioner's application seeking approval/permission to start Arts and Science College for Women, without insisting upon the production of approval of the building plan by the Department of Town and Country Planning. For better understanding, relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

¶26

"9. Therefore, by following the above said order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.20890 and 20891 of 2016, dated 31.08.2016, which infact, followed by another learned Judge in W.P.No.9219 of 2017, dated 17.4.2017, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner seeking for approval / permission to start the Arts and Science College for Women, without insisting upon the production of approval of the building plan by the Department of Town and Country Planing. In all other aspects, the petitioner shall satisfy the authorities viz., the respondents, if the certificates already produced by them are not sufficient enough insofar as those aspects are concerned. The respondents shall consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certificates. The petitioner shall produce the other required certificates before the authorities within a period of two weeks from

¶27

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

¶28

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ... "

¶29

On the same terms, this Court disposed of the following Writ Petitions also:

¶30

(i) W.P.Nos.682 and 683 of 2018, dated 19.01.2018

¶31

(ii) W.P.No.2148 of 2018, dated 15.02.2018

¶32

In fine, the present Writ Petitions are also disposed of on the same terms as mentioned in the above Writ Petitions. No costs."

¶33

In fine, the present Writ Petition is also allowed and the respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for continuation of recognition up to X standard without insisting upon the building plan approval from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP). However, in all other aspects the petitioner shall satisfy the authorities, viz., the respondent. The respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, on production of other certificates and papers that are required from him for processing the application. No costs.

¶34

Sd/Deputy Registrar //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

mpa/pvs To

¶36

The Directorate of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶37

+1cc to Mr. E.Vijayanand, Advocate SR.No.58562 +1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.59329

¶38

W.P.No.21949 of 2018

¶39

GMY(24/09/2018)

¶40

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

St.Marys Matriculation School v. The Directorate of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St.Marys Matriculation School v. The Directorate of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Mukhopadhyay Vs The Controller of Examinations

C.Saravana Sudhan, Vs The Directorate of Technical

Arul College of Education, Vs National Council for Teacher

Pondicherry Institute of Vs The Government of India

Minor Rogith Kumar.B Vs The Chairman

Tamil Nadu Arya Samaj Vs State of Tamil Nadu