Dismissed

Crescent Higher Secondary School, v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC17 Jul 2023WP/5556/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed two connected writ petitions challenging the possibility of a change in school management and lease transfer, ruling that the disputed dispute did not fall under the court's writ jurisdiction and the petitioner's apprehensions were misplaced. No relief was granted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Crescent Higher Secondary School, Vs The Secretary… — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.5556 and 15092 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶6

W.P.Nos.5556 and 15092 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.6512, 18997 and 18815 of 2020

¶7

Crescent Higher Secondary School, No.73 Chanda Sahib Street, Puducherry Rep. by its Manager, M.Emthiyas ... Petitioner in W.P.No.5556 of 2020

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

¶10

2.The Director, Directorate of School Education, Puducherry 605 005.

¶11

3.The Joint Director, Directorate of School Education, Higher Secondary Wing, Puducherry 605 005.

4.Nisar Ahmed

5.Farah Khan

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.Nos.5556 and 15092 of 2020

¶17

6.M.G.Mukthar Ahmed

¶18

... Respondents in W.P.No.5556 of 2020

¶19

Crescent Higher Secondary School, No.73 Chanda Sahib Street, Puducherry Rep. by its Manager, M.Emthiyas

¶20

... Petitioner in W.P.No.15092 of 2020

¶21

Vs.

¶22

1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

¶23

2.The Director, Directorate of School Education, Puducherry 605 005.

¶24

3.The Joint Director, Directorate of School Education, Higher Secondary Wing, Puducherry 605 005.

¶25

4.The Secretary, Waqf and Minority Affairs, Chief Secretariat, Kuber Salai / Beach Road, Puducherry.

¶26

5.The Secretary, Waqf Board of Puducherry, No.3, 3rd Floor, Yanam Vengadasalam Pillai Street,

¶27

2/8

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.Nos.5556 and 15092 of 2020

¶30

Puducherry-605 001

¶31

6.The Management Committee, Rep. by its President, Waqf-Anjuman-E-Himayath-UI Islam, Puducherry-605 001.

7.Nisar Ahmed

8.Farah Khan

9.M.G.Mukthar Ahmed

10.Hajiram Bheevi ... Respondents in W.P.No.15092 of 2020

¶36

Prayer in W.P.No.5556 of 2020: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to forbear from entertaining any communication from respondents 4 to 6 with reference to administration and management of petitioner school run by Farouk Educational Trust approved by the order of 3rd respondent in order No.267/DSE/HSW/AC/A1/2019 dated 22.11.2019 and consequently take appropriate legal action against respondents 4 to 6 for creating false records to submit application for change of management of petitioner school in favour of Abdul Gaffar Abdul Kareem Sait Educational Trust and making public advertisement in the name of 'New Crescent Higher Secondary School, Puducherry', not approved and recognized by Education Department, by considering the representation of the petitioner school dated 23.12.2019.

¶37

3/8

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.Nos.5556 and 15092 of 2020

¶40

Prayer in W.P.No.15092 of 2020: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 4 to 6 from leasing out the petitioner school premises located at No.568, M.G.Road, Puducherry in the name of respondents 7 to 10 in violation of the provisions of Rule 4 and Rule 5 of Waqf Properties Lease Rules, 2014 and to restore the lease of the school building in the name of petitioner school under the management of Farouk Education Trust forthwith, by considering the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 10.07.2020 and subsequent representations.

¶41

In W.P.No.5556 of 2020

¶42

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan

¶43

For Respondents : Mr.R.Syed Mustafa Special Government Pleader for R1, R2 and R3

¶44

Mr.V.S.Senthil Kumar

¶45

for R4 to R6 In W.P.No.5556 of 2020

¶46

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan

¶47

For Respondents : Mr.R.Syed Mustafa Special Government Pleader for R1, R2 and R3

¶48

Mr.V.S.Senthil Kumar for R7 to R10

¶49

COMMON ORDER

¶50

4/8

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.P.Nos.5556 and 15092 of 2020

¶53

The petitioner herein is the Crescent Higher Secondary School, and it has a board of management that maintains the affairs of the school. While so, the petitioner became apprehensive that respondents 4 to 6 in W.P.No.5556 of 2020 are about

¶54

to hijack the school under a new name, viz. New Crescent Higher Secondary School, under their management.

¶55

2.The petitioner has also filed W.P.No.15092 of 2020, wherein it seeks an order forbearing the respondents 4 to 6 in that Writ, not to transfer lease of the property in which the school operates to the same set of private respondents.

¶56

3.Learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 in W.P.No.5556 of 2020 appeared before this Court and made a statement that they are not interfering with the petitioner's school. They also made a statement that the school is continued to be maintained by the very people who have been managing it all along, and that the apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced and misconceived. The said statement of the counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 is hereby recorded.

¶57

4.This Court considers that this dispute does not fall under the purview of the

¶58

5/8

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

W.P.Nos.5556 and 15092 of 2020

¶61

writ jurisdiction of this court. In any case, in view of the statement made by the private respondents, the petitioner's apprehension is misconceived. In view of the same, nothing survives for consideration in these Writ Petitions, and they are liable to be dismissed.

¶62

5.These Writ Petitions stand dismissed accordingly. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶63

17.07.2023

¶64

Anu Index : Yes / No Neutral citation : yes/no To

¶65

1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.

¶66

2.The Director, Directorate of School Education, Puducherry 605 005.

¶67

3.The Joint Director, Directorate of School Education,

¶68

6/8

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

W.P.Nos.5556 and 15092 of 2020

¶71

Higher Secondary Wing, Puducherry 605 005.

¶72

4.The Secretary, Waqf and Minority Affairs, Chief Secretariat, Kuber Salai / Beach Road, Puducherry.

¶73

5.The Secretary, Waqf Board of Puducherry, No.3, 3rd Floor, Yanam Vengadasalam Pillai Street, Puducherry-605 001

¶74

6.The Management Committee, Rep. by its President, Waqf-Anjuman-E-Himayath-UI Islam, Puducherry-605 001.

¶75

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

¶76

7/8

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶78

W.P.Nos.5556 and 15092 of 2020

¶79

Anu

¶80

W.P.Nos.5556 and 15092 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.6512, 18997 and 18815 of 2020

¶81

17.07.2023

¶82

8/8

¶83

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crescent Higher Secondary School, v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Crescent Higher Secondary School, v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathuvanthi Vs The Regional Passport officer

R.Sarada Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Mj.Sankar Vs the Commissioner

Grandhi Balaji Vs The District Collector

Mrs.G.Jayanthi Vs The District Collector

R.Venkataramanan Vs The Secretary