Disposed

The Federation of Private Schools v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC14 Dec 2018WP/33313/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Federation of Private Schools in Tamil Nadu sought a direction to state authorities to consider a representation regarding extending building concurrence benefits for schools in planning areas similar to non-planning areas. The court directed the respondents to consider the representation within eight weeks after providing an opportu

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2018 and pass suitable orders after giving an opportunity of being heard.

The Federation of Private Schools Vs The State of… — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.12.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.33313 of 2018

¶6

The Federation of Private Schools in Tamil Nadu (FAPSIT), a registered society (Registration No.108/2010), represented by its Secretary, D.C. Elangovan, No.11/6A, P.T.Rajan Salai, 20^th Avenue, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600 078. ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George. Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner, Municipal Administration Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 3. The Director of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600002. 4. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, School Educational Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.06.2018 for extending the benefit of obtaining concurrence from the 3^rd respondent in respect of the buildings in which educational institutions are constructed in planning areas are functioning and which were completed prior to 01.01.2011, on payment of the stipulated charges, as provided for buildings in which educational institutions are constructed in non-planning areas, under G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 14.06.2018.

¶7

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

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar

¶9

For Respondents : Mrs.Ramya Revathy

¶10

Government Advocate

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2018 for extending the benefit of obtaining concurrence from the Director of town and Country Planning, in respect of the buildings, in which educational institutions are constructed in a planning areas.

¶13

According to the petitioner association, they have submitted their representation dated 18.06.2018 on the ground that, the Government already issued an order in G.O.(Ms)No.76, Housing and Urban Development, (UD4(3) Department, dated 14.06.2018, regularizing the non-plan area educational institutions and sought that the similar relief should be extended to the schools running in the planning area also. But, so far their representation has not been considered by the respondents 1 and 2. Hence, the present writ petition has

¶14

been filed.

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶16

Considering the limited prayer sought for in this writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2018 and pass suitable orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

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

¶21

mrp

¶22

To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George.
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Municipal Administration Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3. The Director of Town and Country Planning,
No.807, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600002.
4. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government,
School Educational Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
+1cc to V.G.Suresh Kumar, Advocate sr.86955
+1cc to the Government Pleader sr.88403
W.P.No.33313 of 2018
srg 21/12/2018

¶23

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

The Federation of Private Schools v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Federation of Private Schools 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

Poomalai, Vs the District Collector

K.Raja Vs the Secretary

S.Chitra, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

M/s. Thomas Iyadurai Infrastruture Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Commissioner

N.Vengadasamy Vs Justice S.Rajeswaran

Nagaraj v. Vs Sundaram