Allowed

Citizen Public School and another v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC4 Oct 2021WP/23642/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging relocation orders issued against a school without prior hearing was disposed of at the admission stage with consent. The High Court set aside the order violating natural justice and remanded the matter to the District Educational Officer for fresh orders after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.06.2021 set aside; matter remanded to 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity of hearing.

Citizen Public School and another Vs The… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23642 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Citizen Public School, Rep. by its Correspondent, V.Balakrishna Hari, S/o Srinivas, - aged 45 years^' Karimnagar Road, Narsapur X Roads, Siddipet - 502103

¶9

Vadapalli Srihari E_ducational Society, Rep. by its General Secretary, V.Balakrishna Hari, S/o Srinivas, aged-45 years Karimnagar Road, Narsapir X Roads, Siddipet - 502103

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

The Commissioner of School Education, Beside Telephone Bhavan, Saifabad, Khairatabad, Hyderabad

¶14

3 The Regionq! Joint Director of School Education, Abids, Hyderabad

¶15

The District Educational Officer, Siddipet District, Siddipet.'

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing the impugned order Rc.No.11514412021, dt.18.06.2021 and reiterating the same by proceedings Rc,No.1 151A412021 , dt.15.09.2021 directing relocation of the school as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice as well as Telangana Education Act and further set aside the same.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order Rc.No.1 151A412021, dt.18.06.2021 and also proceedings Rc.No.1 151A412O21, dt.15.09.2021, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. SRIKANTH

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE AEHINAND KUMAR SH,AVILI

¶26

WR|T^pETIT|ON No.23642 of 2021

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition is being disposed of ot the stoge of odmission with the consent of leorned counsel for the respeclive porties.

¶29

This wrii petilion is filed seeking ihe following reliei:

¶30

"...... to issue a Writ, Order or direction particutarty one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus dectaring the action of the Respondents in issuing the impugned order Rc.No. 1151A412021, dt.18.06.20?j and reiterating rhe same by proceedings Rc.No.115/A4l2021 dt.15.09.2021 directing retocation of the school as ittegat, arbitrary and violative of principtes of natural justice as wett as Tetangana Education Act and further set aside the same ..... .^,,.

¶31

Heord Sri M.Srikonth, leorned counsel oppeoring for the petitioners qnd the leorned Government pleoder for School Educolion oppeoring for the respondents.

¶32

lt hos been contended by the petitioners thol they hove estoblished o school in the yeor 2005 ofter obtoining necessory permission from the outhoriiies concerned. While so, respondenl No.4 hos issued the impugned proceedings doted 18.06.2021 direcling lhe petitioners to relocote the school of o differenl ploce, os the some is very neorer to lhe Tronsformer ond petrol Bunk.

¶33

Leorned counsel oppeoring for the petilioners hod contended thol it oppeors thot bosing on lhe comploint lodged by one Sri Md. Shdul, without conducting ony enquiry, respondent No.4 hos slroight owoy possed the impugned order doted 1g.06.2021 direcling the petirioners to rerocote the Schoor ot o different proce. He, lherefore, contends thot hod the respondents given on opportunity before possing the impugned order, the petitioners would hove demonstroted thot the School is not siluoted neorby

¶34

\ \

¶35

)

¶36

Tronsformer ond Petrol Bunk.^{Leorned counsel for the pelitioners,} therefore, conlends thot the^{impugned orderis lioble1o be set} oside os il is violotive of the^{principles of noturol justice.}

¶37

Leorned Government^{Pleoder oppeoring for the respondents} hod contended thot bosing on^{lhe comploint lodged by} Sri Md.Shdul lhot ihe^{School is situoied very neorer to the} Tronsformer ond Peirol Bunk,^{in ihe interesiof sludenls only,the 4ih} respondent hos^{possedthe impugned order.He further' contends} thot since it is contended^{by the peiitioners thot no opportunityis} given to them, let the impugned^{order be set oside ond the motter} be remonded to^{the 4tn respondent, to enoble the 4th respondent} to^poss opproprioie^{ordersin occordonce with low, ofter giving on} opportunity of^{heoring io the petilioners.}

¶38

This Courl, hoving considered^{the rivolsubmissionsmode by} the leorned counsel^{for the respecliveporties, is of the considered} view lhot since lhe impugned^{order doled1806'2021is possed} without giving ony opporiunily^{to the pelilioners,the someis lioble} to be set oside, os^{it is violotive of principlesof noiurol juslice'}

¶39

Accordingly, the^{impugned orderdoted18'06'2021 is set} oside ond the molier^{is remondedto the 4th respondent' to enoble} the 41h respondent to^{poss opproprioteorders in occordonce wiih} low, ofresh, ofter^{giving on opportunity of heoringlo the petitioners'} B. Accordingly, this^{writ petitionis disposed of} '^{No costs'}

¶40

Pending miscelloneous^{peiitions, if ony, sholl stond closed'}

¶41

SD/.B.SAWAVATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE coPY/t \Y/

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1 The Principal^{Secretary, School Education Department'State of Telangana'} Secretariat,^HYderabad 2 The Commissioner^{of School Education'BesideTelephone Bhavan' Saifabad'} Khairatabad,^HYderabad

¶46

The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Abids, Hyderabad

¶47

The District Education Officer,.Siddipet Oisiiili SraJipei.

¶48

One CC to Sri M. Srikanth, Advocate tOpUCt

¶49

Two ccs to GP for Schoor Education, High cburt for the State of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies 8. One Spare Copy SM \ k

HIGH COURT

DATED:.0411012021

ORDER

WP.No.23642 ol 2021

/.
2 0 0[T2fli1

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

-.-:9-(rl to\o'"

Citizen Public School and another v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Citizen Public School and another v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

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

L. Kishan Singh and another Vs D. Baloji and another

Smt. v. Uma Devi Vs Sri Rahul bojja and 2 others

P. Narayana Vs Sri. G.Srinivasa Rao and 3 others

K.Padmaja Vs South Central Railway

The Executive Engineer, Randb Division, and Another Vs Jangaiah, and 2 Others

Katakvar Jodraj Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others