Allowed

P. Jeyashree Prabhakar v. District Educational Officer

Telangana HC29 Aug 2012WA/475/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court directed the authorities to dispose of a representation filed by the appellant regarding the unauthorized runs of a play school. The Court mandated that the second respondent be given a chance of hearing before any order is passed and directed the disposal within four weeks, disregarding the earlier dismissal at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Directed the authorities to serve a notice on the second respondent, afford an opportunity of hearing, and dispose of the representation within four weeks.

P. Jeyashree Prabhakar Vs District Educational… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL NO.475 OF 2012

¶3

Dt: 29-08-2012.

¶4

Between:

¶5

MRS.P.JEYASHREE PRABHAKAR .. APPELLANT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER VISAKHAPATNAM AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO.475 OF 2012

¶10

JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

¶11

This writ appeal is filed aggrieved by an order of the Hon’ble single Judge dated 27-03-2012 passed in W.P.No.8369 of 2012, wherein the writ petitioner has prayed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st respondent in not taking any action on the representation made by the petitioner dated 24.02.2012 in initiating action as contemplated under Section 20(4) of A.P. Education Act against the 2^nd respondent as bad, illegal, irregular and consequently to direct the 1^st respondent to take appropriate action against the 2^nd respondent as contemplated under Section 20(4) of A.P. Education Act for running the play school without obtaining any permission from the authorities as required under law.

¶12

The Hon’ble single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, holding that since the 2^nd respondent did not vacate the tenanted premises and continued to occupy the premises even after expiry of lease period, it is evident that the petitioner intended to create spokes for the activity of the tenant in the tenanted premises.

¶13

In this matter, it is only submitted before us on behalf of the writ appellant that a representation has been filed before the authorities which should be considered by them in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶14

In view of the above submission, we direct the said authorities, while disposing of the representation dated 24.2.2012 filed by the appellant/writ

¶15

petitioner a notice should be served upon the 2^nd respondent and he must be given a chance of being heard before any order is being passed. The representation should be disposed of within a period of four weeks from today without being influenced with the order already passed by the Hon’ble single Judge.

¶16

This writ appeal is disposed of on the above terms.

¶17

( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )

¶18

( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,

¶19

J )

¶20

Dt: 29-08-2012.

¶21

TNB

P. Jeyashree Prabhakar v. District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Jeyashree Prabhakar v. District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranikreddy Mahalaksmi Vs The District Collector, East Godavari District at

Sri Koripella Sai Lashmana Rao, Vs The District Collector

Smt. Gorantla Jhansi Lakshmi Vs The District Collector, East Godavari District

C. Venkat Reddy Vs M. Srinivas

Dantuluri Venkata Ramana Raju, Vs The District Collector, Visakhapatnam

Joint Family Firm of M.C.Dhanraj and Sons, Vs P.D.K.Wad