Disposed

Chanakya School v. The State of Telangnaa

Telangana HC19 Sept 2024WP/22585/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order disposed of a writ petition challenging proceedings that directed a school to shift premises. The court directed the respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry, examine documents, and provide a personal hearing to both parties before taking action under the Telangana Education Act.

What did the court decide?

The respondent was directed to examine documents submitted by both parties and conduct a detailed enquiry by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to both parties.

Chanakya School Vs The State of Telangnaa — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETI TION NO: 2 2585 0F 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

CHANAKYA SCHOOL House premises at g-99, tvladdur village And Mandal, Narayanpet Mandat Reo.bv its Correspond"ni C lJiirppa S/o Hanmanthu, vrllage, aged about Maddur [\iandal Narayanapei 30 vears. odc correspoiro".i District "ri'.," t"dobt il; A;h;;p;ily

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

The State of Telanonaa Ren bV its principal Secretary School Education pepa_$ment,Secretaiiat,HyaeraO'aO^{vrrer vvvrv}

¶12

2 The commissioner and. Director of schoor Education, 0/o Director of schoor a Education. Saifabad, Hyderabad Ihe uistrict Collector ( Education 500004--Wing ), Narayanapet District 4q rne ursr.ct tducational Officer, Maddur Mandal Narayanapet District The Mandal Educational Officer NarJyinjp"i oi.il.i'ruaravanaoer

¶13

Katkam S?lvanarayana, S/o Katakim Mr;r;,;i &"j"66';;rrs occ Agriculture R/o Mad-dur village and UfanOaf . I.laiJiaiapet Orstrict

¶14

Katakam S_rinivas, S/o Kitakam. Sait;n;;ar;;a*'Aged 4d years. occ a Agriculture R/o Maddur village and Katakam !a.me9h, S/o Kitakam. SJ1y.r19rryl"a--aged Urna6i, Naijvriapet drstrict4i years, Occ lgriculture^{R/o Maddurviilage ayd wtanOdt,} Ni#yanlpet aistrict

¶15

Katkam .^{Raghavendra, slo -xatatam g.aiia} ;;,;G;; ag;d' about 40 years.

¶16

occ Agricutture R/o Maddur viilage and M;fu;i. ti;;;y;napet drstrict

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased toto issue a writ. order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the impugned proceedings, Rc.No. 233lB1lPvt/2024 dated 8-8-2024 issued by the 4th respondent by directing the petitioner to shift the schoor to the premises bearing No. B-9g/9, rmmediatery and intimate the same to the undersigned under intimation to the Mandar Educationar officer, Maddur otherwise the permission accorded to the schoor wifl be

¶19

withdrawn without giving any notice or assigning any reasons there in after is illegal, invalid and arbitrary, and consequently, set aside the impugned proceedings dated B-8-2024 issued against the petitioner by the 4th respondent forthwith

¶20

lA NO:^'f OF 2024

¶21

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 stay against the proceedings Rc No. 233tB1lpvt/2024 dated B-B-2024 issued by the 4th respondent by "directing the petitioner to shift the school to the premises bearing No. 8-99/9 of Maddur viilage and Mandar, Narayanpet district, lmmediately and intimate the same to the undersigned under intimation to the Mandal Educational officer, Maddur otherwise the permission accorded to the School will be withdrawn without giving any notice or assigning any reasons there in after" pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S. VIJAYA PRASHANTH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to5: Gp FOR EDUCATION

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6to9: SRI NARENDAR JALLI

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASI{AR REDDY

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.22585 of 2024

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

¶30

"....to bsue a Wit. Order or Direction more partianlarlg one in the rlature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaing the impugned proceedings, Rc.No. 233/ 81/ Put/ 2024 dated 8-8-2O24 issued by the 4threspondent bg^"directing the petitioner to shifi the school to the premises beaing No.8-99/9, Immediatelg and tntimate the same to the Undersigned under intimation to the Mandal Educational Olficer, Maddur otheru.tise the permi.ssion accorded to the School u-rtll be u-tithdrawn without giutng ang notice or assigntng anA reasons there in afier" is illegal, inualid and arbitrory, ond conseqtentlg, set aside the impugned proceedings dated 8-8-2O24 bsued agoinst the petitioner bA the 4th respondent for7huith...'

¶31

It is stated that the petitioner has made an application to the respondent No.4 for opening the Unaided private school under the name and style "Chanakya School" at the premises bearing H.No.899/9 situated at Maddur Village and Mandal, Narayanpet District, under the Vidyaniketan Educational Society, Maddur vide Registration No. 350/2023 dated 27 -O9-2O23.1t is the case of the petitioner that it has complied with all the requirements for granting permission to run the school.While-so, the respondent Nos.6 to 9

¶32

¶33

who are having somc^{differcncesand disputesrvith rcgardto} immovable^{properties with the B.Shivasaranappa,} owner of the subject^{premises filed Writ PetitionNo.143 17 of 2024 on the file of} this Court allcging^{that petitioner schoolis misusing the permission} and conducting^{the classesin housepremises bearingNo'4-40/ 17 of} Ma<ldur Village^{and Mandal,NarayanpetDistrictbut not in premises} bearing^{No.8-99/9 of MaddurViltage. This Court vidc order dated} 18.06.2024^{disposedofthe said writ petition directing the official} respondent Nos.2 to^{5therein toconcludet'he enquiryas} expeditiously as^{possible preferablywithin a period of four weeks} from the datc^{of receipt of a copy of the order. It is the case of the} petitioner that it is running^{school in the premisesbearingNo'8-} 99/9, Maddur^{Village and Mandal, NarayanpetDistrict' However,the} respondent No.4 issued^{impugned proceedingsvide} Rc.No.233/B1 lPvt/2024^{dated 08.08.2024 directingthe petitionerto} shift the school to^{premises bearingNo.8-99/9immediatelyand} intimate the same^{to the respondent No.S, otherwise the permission} accorded to the School^{wouldbe withdrawnwithoutgiving anynotice} or assigning any reasons.^{Challengingthe same, the presentwrit} petition is iiled.

¶34

The learned Government Pleader for Education^{has produced} the letter vide Rc.No.233lBl lPvtl2024^{dated 13 092024 issuedbv}

¶35

¶36

¶37

the respondent No.4 and submitted that basing on the^complaintof respondent Nos.6 to t herein /^petitioners in W.P.No.^{143 17 of 2024,} the respondent^{No.5 conducted inquiry and found that the petitioner} is running the school^{at the premisesbearing No.4-40/ 17 instead of} premises No. 8-99/9 and accordingly, directed^{the petitioner to shift} the school^{to the authorized location. It is further submitted that the} school management had^misused the^{permissiongranted by the} respondent No.4 vide^Proceedings in^{Rc.No.6414lBllWtl2023,} dated 01.03.2024, by^{operating from an unauthorized location.As a} result, the respondent^{No.4 reiterated its earlier directionsto the} petitioner to shift the school immediately, with a warning^of revocation of^permission in case of^{non-compliance.}

¶38

In view of the above submissions, as the^{respondentNo.3 has} already acted upon the complaint submitted^{by the respondentNos.6} to 9 and issued^proceedings in^Rc.No.233 lBl lWtl2o24^dated 13.09 .2024, this Court^deems it^{appropriatethat ends of justice} would be met, if the respondent^No.S is^{directed to examine the} documents submitted by the^petitioner as^well as^{the respondent} Nos.6 to 9 and conduct a detailed enquiry^{by providing an} opportunity of^{personal hearing to both parties and take appropriate} action, strictly in accordance with^{the provisions of the Telangana} Education Act and the Rules^{madethereunder.}

¶39

.}.-.-

¶40

¶41

V/ith the^{aboveobservations,this Writ Petition is disposed of}

¶42

Asasequelthereto,miscellaneouspetitions'ifany'pending shail stand^{closed.No ordcr as lo costs'}

¶43

¶44

sD/-A.v.s. PRASAD / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR^/ ,TRUE COPY// 0 sEcfloN orrtceR

¶45

To,

¶46

TheStateofTelangnaa,Rep'byitsPrincipalsecretarySchoolEducation Deoartment,^{Secretariat,Hyderabad.}

¶47

i;5til;i;.6nei'ano.^{oilector of School Education, 0/o Director of School} Education,^{Saifabad, Hyderabad500004}

¶48

T[e -Dstrict Collectoi ( Education Wing ), Narayanapet District 4. fi-ie Oiiiriii^{Education'alofficer, Maddur Mandal Narayanapet District} E iiie^{ft f} inOat^{Educational Officer,Na rayanapetD istrict N?rayanapet}

¶49

onl cC to^{sRl. s vlJAYA PRASHANTH, Advocate[OPUC]} - - 7. i*" ccri.^{-ci roR roucRTtoN,High court for the state of Telanganaat} Hvderabad [OUTI oire CC to SRt.^{funRTNDERJALLI.Advocate[oPUC]}

8I Two CD CoPies

BM LS @A

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910912024

/4--==r
D{r THE q;..'
.l ).
:l 00 il[l/ 208
.1,

¶56

ORDER

¶57

WP.No.22585 of 2024

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

-9p

Chanakya School v. The State of Telangnaa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanakya School v. The State of Telangnaa

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

Smt.D.Chudamma , Chudamani W/o Late D.Venkateswarlu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

T. Muralidhar Rao, Vs State of Telangana

Challa Ramesh, Vs The Union of India

Gonthi Gopal Reddy Gonthi Gopi Vs State of Telangana

Mohd. Ali and 4 Ors. Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 2 Ors.

Gowtham Poluri Vs Union of India