Dr.v.Pandiyan Vs the Director of Town and Country Planning

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 5, 6, 7 & 9 herein to take appropriate action against the 8^th respondent for running the above-mentioned school viz., VRP Higher Secondary School in violation of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and its allied Rules viz., Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974, including withdrawal of recognition and consequential relocation of existing students to other recognised private schools.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.K.Tippu Sultan, Government Advocate for RR1 to 3 Mr.T.Seenivasan for R4 M/s.P.Rajarajeswari, Government Advocate for RR5 to 7 & 9 Mr.N.Suresh for R8

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The instant writ petition has been filed on the sole ground that the 8^th

¶27

respondent is running the school in violation of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P Nos.19584 of 2024

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fifth respondent is obligated to take cognizance of the complaint submitted by the members of the general public in this regard. In the case on hand, the learned counsel fairly stated that the complaint was submitted by the petitioner on 29.04.2024 to the appropriate authority, but the same has not yet been considered by the respondents.

¶32

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 8^th respondent submitted that the petitioner, in his representation, is essentially asserting a right over the property, which amounts to claiming a civil right over the school and an issue that cannot be adjudicated by the Writ Court. It is pertinent to mention that it is the specific submission of the learned counsel that the eighth respondent has obtained all necessary statutory recognitions.

¶33

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and also perused the materials available on record.

¶34

While looking at the representation, though it appears on the surface

¶35

to be an attempt to bring certain statutory violations to the attention of the 3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P Nos.19584 of 2024

¶38

appropriate authority, a closer and more detailed reading reveals that it both covertly and overtly reflects an underlying civil dispute. It is evident that the petitioner is attempting to resolve a civil matter through writ jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court absolutely does not find any merits in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the authority concerned is at liberty to take appropriate action against the 8^th respondent and if it is found that the 8^th respondent does not possess recognition under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶40

11.08.2025

¶41

ssi Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P Nos.19584 of 2024

¶45

To:

¶46

1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, O/o.Town and Country Planning, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Municipal Administration Department, Ezhilagam Annex, 6^th Floor, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶47

3.The Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning, Villupuram Region, TADCO Building G.H.Road, Villupuram 605 602.

¶48

4.The Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality, No.734, PJN Road, Villupuram 605 602.

¶49

5.The Directorate of School Education (Private Schools), DPI Campus, Nungambakkam, Chennai -6.

¶50

6.The Chief Educational Officer, Moovendar Nagar, Villupuram 605602.

¶51

7.District Educational Officer (Private Schools) Villupuram District.

¶52

8.Joint Director of School Education, Chennai.