Disposed

M.Anantaraman, v. Director of School Education

Madras HC7 Sept 2021WP/9668/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed the petitioner was not directly affected as he lacked standing. Relying on a status report, the Court directed the School Director to take appropriate action and issue notice to the unauthorized school while ensuring student accommodation.

What did the court decide?

Directs the Director of School Education to take appropriate action against the school and issue prior notice to the fourth respondent.

M.Anantaraman, Vs Director of School Education — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:07.09.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

W.P.NO.9668 OF 2017

M.Anantaraman

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Director of School Education College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶12

Central Board of Secondary Education Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre Preet Vihar, New Delhi – 110 092.

¶13

The Secretary to Government Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

The Correspondent

¶15

Sri Chaitanya School No.110, GST Road, Pallavaram Chennai – 600 043.

¶16

The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai

¶17

Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 31.1.2017 and issue suitable directions to the respondents 1 and 3 to initiate action against the running of fourth respondent Sri Chaitanya School at No.110, G.S.T.Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 043.

¶19

For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Sridhar

¶20

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

¶21

For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar

¶22

State Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3

¶23

: Mr.Krishna Baghawat for 4^th respondent

¶24

: Mr.Karthik Rajan for 5^th respondent

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent school has been opened and is being run without due permission being obtained under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.

¶28

However, it appears that the petitioner herein may not be directly affected since the petitioner is neither a student nor does the petitioner espouse the cause on behalf of any student at the said school. It does not appear that the petitioner is the parent or guardian of any student studying at the fourth respondent school.

¶29

A status report has been filed by the Director of School Education, indicating that appropriate permission from the State Regulatory Authority had not been obtained by the fourth respondent before starting the school and that there is no CBSE accreditation for the relevant school.

¶30

In view of such status report, the first respondent should take immediate appropriate action against the school in accordance with law and upon issuing prior notice to the school. The first respondent is reminded that the interest of the students have also to be catered to and in the event the school is closed down or not permitted to continue any further, the first respondent should ensure that the present students are accommodated elsewhere.

¶31

The fourth respondent says that there is no anomaly in its operation and that permissions of the kind referred to are ordinarily obtained upon the school being functional and in due course.

¶32

It will be open to the fourth respondent school to indicate any defence that may be available and cite all reasons upon receiving any notice from the first respondent or any other

¶33

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

¶34

respondent authority. It is made clear that the allegations levelled are not gone into in view of the status report filed by the first respondent.

¶35

W.P.No.9668 of 2017 is disposed of. W.M.P.No.10642 of 2017 is closed.

¶36

There will be no order as to costs.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

bbr

¶42

To:

¶43

The Director of School Education College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶44

Central Board of Secondary Education Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre Preet Vihar, New Delhi – 110 092.

¶45

The Secretary to Government Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶46

The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai Chennai – 600 008.

¶47

+1cc to Mr.Karthik Rajan, Advocate, S.R.No.45290

¶48

+1cc to Mr.P.Subbareddy, Advocate, S.R.No.45135

¶49

+1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate, S.R.No.45679(30/09/2021)

W.P.No.9668 of 2017

JP(CO)

PM/14/09/2021

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

M.Anantaraman, v. Director of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Anantaraman, v. Director of School Education

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

A.Mydeen Bi Vs The Branch Manager

The Authorized Officer Vs The Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate

Mohamed Iqbal Vs The Director

E.Nareshkumar Vs The Commissioner Corporation of

A.Murugesan Vs The District collector

Oveyam Ranjan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu