Disposed

Jose Nedumthundam v. State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC3 Sept 2024WP/35025/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice to close a recognized school. The court directed the Revenue Officer to provide an opportunity of personal hearing in compliance with natural justice before proceeding and continued the interim status quo on the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit detailed explanation within two weeks; respondent to consider it after personal hearing within four weeks; interim order maintained.

Jose Nedumthundam Vs State of Telangana and 4… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

|³²⁵²¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 35025 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Jose Nedumthundam, S/o Chacko, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Correspondent, [\Iontissori UPS School, Rr/o Flat No.402, Sar Ganesh Apartment, Bhadradri Kothaguem District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 3 The Tahsildar, Tekulapally Mandal, Tekulapally, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶14

The Agency Divisional Officer Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶15

Daravath Suresh, S/o Hamu, Aged about years, Occ. RJo Tekulapally village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the 4th respondent, with LTR case No.1 fiKPl 2022, against the petitioner, though it is a school duly recognised by the DEO, Bhadradri Kothagudem, as arbitrary, illegal and unlawful and offending the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequentially, to set aside the same as null and void and non est in law.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 stay all the proceedings in LTR case No.1 /TKP I 2022, on the file of the 4th respondent during the^pendency of the above writ petition.

lA NO: 1 OF 202 3

Between:

State of Tetangana. Rep .gy its principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Slcretariai, HvOeiaO^{jO.' -v vvr v!q'''}

¶24

The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶25

TheJahsildar, Tekulapally Mandal, Tekulapally, Bhadradri Kothagudem

¶26

. The Agency D_rvisionar officer cum Revenue Divisionar officer, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶27

...PETITIONERSiRESPONDENTS

¶28

AND

¶29

1 ,lose Nedumthundam, S/o Chacko. Aoed about 60 years, Occ. Apartment, Bhadradri Kothaguem uorrespondent, [Vlontissori UpS Dbinit Schoot, ' R/o^-- Flat No.402 Sai Ganesh

¶30

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶31

Daravath Suresh, S/o Hamu, Aged algut years, Occ. Ri/o Tekulapaily village and fi,rlandat Bhadradri Kothagidem Oiitifi.^{-' -""}

¶32

...RESpONDENTS/RESpONDENT No.5

¶33

Petition under Section 15r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peiition, it" Hign Court may ne ;;;;;1" vacate the status quo orders passed in r.A.No. 1/2022 in wp.No.35025 0f 2022, dt:071O912022.

¶34

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI G. VASANTHA RAYUDU

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: Gp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU

¶37

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶38

¶39

¶40

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶41

WRIT PETTTION No.35025 OF 2022

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

Heard Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

¶44

The petitioner approached the Court seeking^prayer as u nder:

¶45

*...fo issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the^4th respondent with LTR case No.1/TKP/2022, against the^petitioner, though it is a schooi duly recognised by the DEO, Bhadradri Kothagudem, as arbitrary, illegal and unlawful and offending the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequentially, to set aside the same^{as null} and void and non est in law and may^{pass such} other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court^may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity."

¶46

The case of the^petitioner in brief, is that the Montissori Education Society has^proposed to start Upper Primary School^.with

¶47

I 1

¶48

¶49

class-I to VII (English Medium) in the name of Montissori UPS at Tekulapally, and therefore, submitted an application to the District Educational Officer, Kothagudem and also secured the land admeasuring 1089 Sq.Yards bearing H.No.1-1211, in Sy.No.686/1A, and 686/44, at Bethampudi Village, Tekulapally Panchayat and Mandal, and the Mandal Educational Officer, Tekulapally has also submitted proposal for recognition of the Montissori Upper Primary School, Tekulapally Mandal. The respondent No.5 who is unrelated to the school, had approached the management and demanded to satisfy him monetarily or otherwise threatening that he would give complaint to the respondent No.4 to close the school. Basing on the complaint given by the respondent No.5, the respondent No.4 has issued notice in Form No.II to the petitioner vide LTR case NI.|/TKP/2O22 dated 26.08.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition.

¶50

This Court vide its interim order dated O7.09.2O22. oassed interim order in favour of the oetitioner observino as u nder:

¶51

"Notice to respondent No.5.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permiXed to take out^personal notice to^{respondent No.5} and file proof of service.

¶53

¶54

._/

¶55

It is alleged that the impugned notice dated 26.08.2022 has been issued under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 read with Regulation, 7970. Respondent No.S is no way related to the subject property and he had been blackmailing the petitioner for monetary gain. At the instance of respondent No.5, impugned proceedings have been issued.

¶56

The petitioner had been running a School in the subject property which was approved in 2005 by the DEO, Khammam. As school is being run in the subject property and locus standi of respondent No.5 is being^questioned, the matter needs consideration.

¶57

Status quo, obtaining as on today to be maintained until next date of hearing.

¶58

Post on 28.09.2022."

¶59

In^paragraph No.5 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition it is stated that in pursuance to the notice issued to the petitionei- dated 26.08.2022, the petitioner represented before respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the Montissori UPS School had been established after obtaining due recognisation from the District Education Officer, Bhadradri Kothagudem, and the students had been attending the school and therefore, the school cannot be closed and the complaint itself made against the petitioner is with the mala fide intention and the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner itself is contr6-ry to

¶60

¶61

the spirit of the imparting education and yet the respondents are proceeding in the matter without taking into consideration the pleas put-forth by the petitioner before respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner, however, does not disclose the date when he submitted the written explanation to the notice dated 26.0g.2022 issued to the petitioner, nor any specific plea is taken by the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted written explanation to the notice dated 26.08.2022 issued by respondent No.4 herein.

¶62

Taking into consideration the interim order of this Court dated 07.O9.2O22 passed in favour of the petitioner herein which is referred to and extracted above and duty taking note of the fact that the petitioner had not submitted any written explanation to the notice dated 26.0A.2022 issued to the petitioner by respondent No.4 herein, the petationer is directed to submit a detailed explanation to the notace dated 26.08.2O22 issued by respondent No.4 to the petitioner, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon the petitioner furnishing the explanation to the notice dated 26.O8.2O22 issued to the petitioner within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to respondent No.4 herein, the respondent

No.4 shall consider the same in accordance to law inconformity with the principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personat hearing to the petitioner and also to respondent No.S herein and pass appropriate reasoned order, within four (O4) weeks thereafter, and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. Till the above exercise is initiated and concluded by respondent No.4 and appropriate orders passed within the time stipulated by this Court, the interim order dated 07.Og.2OZ2 granted in favour of the petitioner shall remain in force.

¶67

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shafi be no order as to costs.

¶68

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition, sha ll stand clos ed.

¶69

sD/K. VENKAIAH ASSISTAN T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ \tl To, sEcTtoN OFFICER 1 . The^principal Secreta uecretariat, r-ryoeraoj?'^{Tribal welfareDepartment,} State of relangana, ^ i,6i;,.i.pll,t;:+"""-'3,:,T,?1l1T!5;Tsflf,g:l,i,BT!l,.,o,.,Kothagudem 1 {:iriff^{:['Jll?lL?:'orricercum RevenueDivisionarorricer,Bhadradri} :i5,;f^{;;j::$i?"'f 36!l^i1^H,-".'^?ti1Jf,'s:".,1",:,.',f ls,,,"or} \ , copies A[" "o -M,. GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310912024

ORDER

WP.No.35025 of 2022

'ti
1HE S 14
(
() t'
30 DEE ?J24 a
Cr

¶78

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶79

0ttu
<br>W

Jose Nedumthundam v. State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Nedumthundam v. State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bomma Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telanagana

M/S. Hindoil Industries (Rrs 961) Ida Kattedan, Vs Andhra Pradesh Eleltricity Regulatory

M/S. Shrinath Rotopack (P) Ltd. Vs Andhra Pradesh Eleltricity Regulatory commission

M/s. Suryalata Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs The Sothern Power Distribution Company of

Jallipalli Phanindra Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana (Tgspdcl)

M/S. Surya Jyothi Spinning Mills Ltd., (Service Connection Vs The Sothern Power Distribution Company of