The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking mandates on school fee limits and government order compliance. The Court held that since the subject matter was already sub judice in other pending writ petitions regarding the same Government Order, no justiciable cause existed to examine the PIL.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Public Interest Litigation No.177 of 2014
DATED:14.07.2014
Between: Kesari Gurumurthy, Nellore.
… Petitioner And Government of Ahdhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Education department, Hyderabad and others.
….Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Public Interest Litigation No.177 of 2014
Order: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
From the petition in this matter, it is very difficult for us to understand easily what is the relief sought for by the petitioner and what could be granted by this Court legally. Therefore, we feel that the relief as sought for in the petition should be reproduced as it is.
“To issue a writ or direction particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus:
(1) to declare that the failure of the Respondents in not bringing the facts explained in the affidavit to the notice of this Hon’ble Court and suppressing the actual facts in the Court proceedings in W.P. Nos. 27369, 29600, 29016 and 28819 of 2010 and W.P. 18166 of 2014 and PIL 295 of 2013 in the subject matter of G.O.Ms. No.42, School Education (PE.PROG.I) Department dated 30.7.2010, as mala fide intention of the Respondents with bias and favouritism towards the private managements of groups of schools, which is illegal, arbitrary and contra to the principles of natural justice apart from Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and the State Litigation Policy formulated in GOMs. 4, Law (L&J-Home Courts.D) Department dated 28.1.2012;
(2) to declare the inaction of the Respondent No.5 in sending the compliance report as sought by the Respondent No.2 in Letter No. Lr.Rc. No. 114/RTECELL/SPO/AP/2012, dated 30.5.2013, as illegal, arbitrary and mala fide intention with bias and favouritism
towards the private managements of groups of schools and consequently:
(a) direct the Respondents to review the cases of the School Education Department having wider public interest in connection to the school fee and RTE Act 2009 pending in various courts at least once in three months and see that necessary action is taken for properly representing those cases, as recently ordered by this Hon’bleCourt in a GHMC case, speaking through Honourable Sri Justice A. Ramalingeswara Rao in Writ Petition No. 7001 of 2004.
(b) direct the Respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for getting the interim suspension order for the operation of said G.O. Ms. No.42, dated 30.7.2010 be vacated, in the said matters and other identical matters, if any, for the welfare of the parents having school going children, in the larger public interest.
(c) direct the Respondents to issue the executive instructions to all District Educational Officers in both the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to issue circular to private schools in the States not to collect the school fees beyond Rs.7500/- in rural area and Rs.9,000/- in urban area for primary and upper primary schools and Rs.10,800/- in rural area and Rs.12,000/- in urban area for High Schools, for each student, and to strictly adhere to the fees structure stipulated in the Annexure II of G.O. Ms. No.42, dated 30.7.2010 except in case of prior approval from the Government.
(d) direct the Respondents to issue orders to all the D.E.Os. to instruct the concerned Dy.E.Os., and M.E.Os., to visit the private unaided schools, to check whether the school is charging the fees as specified by the Government norms or not and also whether the school has notified the prescribed fee to the parents and general public in notice boards in at least three prominent places in the school and in public domain during the entire year or not, and to submit compliance report to the Government within a stipulated period without fail and pass such other order or orders.”
To our understanding of the prayer, the Government Order which was issued previously was challenged before this Court in
separate proceedings wherein this Court has been pleased to grant interim stay of the operation of the said Government Order. However, no steps have been taken by the Government to get the said writ petition disposed of or to vacate the said interim order. Thus there has been inaction on part of the Government.
Under the circumstances, we are of the view that no justiciable cause has been made out before us and more so, when the issue is subjudice in another writ petition, we cannot examine the same in this Public Interest Litigation. Hence, we dismiss the Public Interest Litigation on that ground alone.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.
__________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J
14th July, 2014
pnb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court can examine the PIL when the issue is sub judice in other writ petitions regarding the same Government Order
Kesari Gurumurthy
Government of Andhra Pradesh
Kalayn Jyoti Sengupta
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
