Disposed

Scism Rural Academy a Matriculation School v. The Director

Madras HC21 Feb 2024WP(MD)/769/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A matriculation school challenged rejection of approval for classes VII to X based on mortgaged buildings and unapproved construction. The Court held mortgage alone was no ground, allowed the school to regularise construction under a government relaxation scheme, and directed fresh consideration within eight weeks without reference to the impugned proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Scism Rural Academy a Matriculation School Vs The… — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.769 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.769 of 2024 and

¶7

W.P(MD)Nos.771 & 773 of 2024

¶8

SCISM Rural Academy A Matriculation School, Asir Nagar, Rasingapuram Village, Bodinayakanur Taluk, Theni District. Represented by its Correspondent, A.Mohanaraja.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Director, Tamil Nadu Private Schools Directorate, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶12

2.The District Educational Officer, Private Schools, Theni District, Theni.

¶13

3.The President, Rasingapuram Village Panchayat, Rasingapuram, Bodinayakanur Taluk, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶14

1/9

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.769 of 2024

¶17

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent herein made in Na.Ka.no.1065/A5/2022 dated 07.04.2022 and consequential proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1065/A3/2022 dated 18.04.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to grant approval in favour of Petitioner School to conduct VII Standard to X Standard.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate for R.1 & R.2

¶20

Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam Government Advocate for R.3

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard both sides.

¶23

2.The writ petitioner is a self financing educational institution. It

¶24

is a School located in Rasingapuram Village having classes from 1^st to 10^th . Classes up to 6^th standard have been approved by the first respondent. The petitioner seeks recognition for classes from 7^th to 10^th

¶25

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

¶26

2/9

¶27

W.P(MD)No.769 of 2024

¶28

standard. The petitioner's application was rejected by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 07.04.2022 and 18.04.2023. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶29

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned proceedings and grant relief as prayed for.

¶30

4.The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the learned Government Advocate took me through its contents. The stand of the respondents is that the impugned proceedings do not call for interference.

¶31

5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

¶32

6.The first respondent has given two reasons for rejecting the petitioner's request. The first is that buildings have been mortgaged for raising funds from secured creditors. The second reason is that buildings

¶33

have been put up without getting approval from the competent authority.

¶34

3/9

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No.769 of 2024

¶37

As regards the first reason, it does not appear to be well founded. Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974 permits the transfer of property of a private school after the competent authority grants permission. In this case, the school properties have not been transferred. They have only been mortgaged. Therefore, the first reason cannot hold good.

¶38

7.The second reason is no doubt well founded. But then the Government taken a policy decision vide G.O(ID)No.221 School Education Department dated 10.08.2022 to grant some kind of relaxation. Paragraph 6 of the said Government Order reads as follows:

¶39

“6. nkw;fhz; epiyapy>; bkl;hpFny\d; gs;spfs; ,af;Fehpd; fUj;JUtpid muR ghprPypid bra;J gs;sp khzhf;fh;fspd; eyidf;fUjp gs;spf; fl;llq;fs; rhh;ghf chpa mikg;gplkpUe;J xg;g[jy; bgwhj Raepjpapy; bray;gLk; midj;J tifahd gs;spfs; kw;Wk; epjp cjtpbgWk; midj;J tifahd gs;spfs;> efh; kw;Wk; Cuikg;g[j; Jiw / cs;@h;jpl;lf;FGkk; / brd;id bgUefu tsh;r;rpf; Fgkj;jpw;F nkny 8-y; gof;fg;gl;l muRf; fojj;jpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s fhyj;jpw;Fs; tpz;zg;gpj;J mjw;fhd Mtz efiy chpa mYtyhplk; Kd;dpiyg; gLj;jpdhy; mj;jifa gs;spfSf;F 01.06.2022 Kjy; 31.05.2023

¶40

4/9

¶41

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

¶42

W.P(MD)No.769 of 2024

¶43

tiu bjhlh; mDkjp / mq;fPfhuk; tHq;f gs;spf;fy;tp Mizah; / bkl;hpFny\d; gs;spfs; ,af;Feh; / bjhlf;ff; fy;tp ,af;Feh; mth;fSf;F mDkjp tHq;fp muR MizapLfpwJ.”

¶44

The said Government Order was considered by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.24909 of 2022 etc. Vide order dated 28.10.2022, the following directions were passed:

¶45

“22. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of these writ petitions with the following order:

¶46

➢ That the members of the petitioners herein, who are the education institutions/schools or its Managements if made any construction for the purpose of running their educational institutions or schools after getting approval or without approval prior to 01.01.2011, the date on which Section 47-A of the Act has come into force, need not make any fresh application to the planning or building authorities for getting approval. But at the same time, if they made fresh construction after 01.01.2011 or additional construction, as the case may be, for which, if there is no approval obtained by them from the competent authority under the said

¶47

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

¶48

5/9

¶49

W.P(MD)No.769 of 2024

¶50

act, those institutions and its Managements shall make an application to the competent authority i.e. planning or building approval authorities under the said Act and such proof shall be filed before the educational authorities, who are competent to consider the request of the individual schools or institutions like the members of the petitioners to consider the extension of recognition or approval of their school or educational institutions beyond 31.05.2022.

¶51

➢ If any of such institutions has not at all made any construction after 01.01.2011, a declaration to that effect in a format by way of an affidavit shall be given by each of the institutions to the educational authorities along with the application, that they have not put up any fresh or additional construction after 01.01.2011 for the purpose of running their educational institutions.

¶52

➢ ? If such an application is made by the institutions their application for extension of approval or recognition, as the case may be, can be considered and decided by the competent authorities of the education department on merits and in accordance with law within a reasonable time because it relates to the current academic year i.e., 2022-2023.”

¶53

6/9

¶54

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

¶55

W.P(MD)No.769 of 2024

¶56

The petitioner can definitely invoke the benefit of said Government Order. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority for regularising the construction already put up by them after the cut off date i.e., 01.01.2011. The petitioner may approach the first respondent with proof of having filed such application. Thereafter, the first respondent shall consider the petitioner's request for granting recognition for classes 7 to 10. Such an order shall be passed by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks after submission of application in the manner mentioned above by the petitioner herein. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. While considering the petitioner's application, the impugned proceedings shall not be referred to or relied upon.

¶57

8.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶58

21.02.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA

¶59

Note: Issue order copy on 01.03.2024.

¶60

7/9

¶61

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

¶62

W.P(MD)No.769 of 2024