Dismissed

Si.Manogaran v. Director of School

Madras HC14 Jun 2022WP/12588/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a writ of Certiorari and Mandamus to quash proceedings regarding a school name change and direct the authority to rename the school. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was not the donor of the school land or building. No constitutional discussion or statutory construction was made.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of locus standi.

Si.Manogaran Vs Director of School — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶5

W.P. No.12588 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶6

Si. Manogaran ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6.

¶9

The Chief Educational Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶10

Government Girls Higher Secondary School, represented by its Head Master, Thirukazhukundram 603 109. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent made in O.Mu.No.037329/N2/E1/2011 dated 06.07.2011 quash the same and direct the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate order effecting the name of the 3^rd respondent school as Arulmigu Thirupurasundari Ammal Government Girls Higher Secondary School as per the assignment letter of the H.E and C.E Commissioner dated 14.11.197 made in Na.ka.46648/72-2 and as recommended by the 2^nd respondent in his letter made in Na.Ka.No.12784/A6/10 dated 20.12.2010 and pass orders.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Y. Ramanaiah

¶13

For Respondents 1 – 3 : Mr. C. Selvaraj Special Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition is filed praying for a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1 st respondent made in O.Mu.No.037329/N2/E1/2011 dated 06.07.2011 quash the same and direct the 1 st respondent to pass appropriate order effecting

¶16

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

¶17

change of the name of the 3 rd respondent school as Arulmigu Thirupurasundari Ammal Government Girls Higher Secondary School as per the assignment letter of the H.E & C.E Commissioner dated 14.11.197 made in Na.ka.No46648/72-2 and as recommended by the 2nd respondent in his letter made in Na.Ka.No.12784/A6/10 dated 20.12.2010 and pass orders.

¶18

2. Before proceeding to examine the matter it may be relevant to note that the respondents in their counter have questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to maintain the present prayer in the writ petition on the premise that the petitioner is neither donor of land or building to the school.

¶19

3. The Government vide G.O.M.S.No.1003, Education Department dated 22.05.196 and G.O.M.S.No.96 School Education Department dated 22.06.2006 Government prescribed norms for naming of Government schools after the donors name. Importantly G.O.M.S.No.1003 Education Department dated 22.05.1976 provides that any gift of private lands and buildings for Government institutions of School Education may be accepted subject to the conditions set out therein which interalia provides that the gift should be unconditional and only “building of the school” can be named after the donor and not the entire school as such. It was submitted that the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Chennai in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.46648/79/2 dated 14.11.197 has assigned the land to an extent of 5 acres for construction of school and 1.18 cents of land for the purpose of play ground. The petitioner is neither a donor of land/building to the school.

¶20

4. The counter further states that if the donor of the land makes representation for effecting change in the name the same will be forwarded to the Government and the Government would pass appropriate orders.

¶21

5. Without going into the merits of the matter, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the respondents that the petitioner may not have locus standi to maintain the above writ petition as he is neither the donor of land or building to the school.

¶22

6. In view of the same, this writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶25

//True copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

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

¶28

smn

¶29

¶30

Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6. 2. The Chief Educational Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 3. Government Girls Higher Secondary Schoool, represented by its Head Master, Thirukazhukundram 603 109. +1cc to Mr.S.Elamurugan, Advocate SR.No.34936 +1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.35373 W.P. No.12588 of 2013 and

¶31

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶32

SKM(CO) GMY(29/06/2022)

¶33

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

Si.Manogaran v. Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Si.Manogaran v. Director of School

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

Saveetha University Vs Medical Council of India

Sri Ramachandra University Vs Union of India

A.Suresh Kumar, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.K.P. Textile Limited, Vs The Chairman

The Scientific Officer (Sf) Vs Shri P. Sukumar

S.Chandrasekaran, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu