This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner society to challenge the impugned order dated 04.12.2015 in Na.Ka.No.3526/AA5/2015 passed by the second respondent and consequently to approve the representatives nominated by the petitioner society through its representation dated 29.06.2015 as members of the school committee of Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Periyanayaki Rengasamy Girls Higher Secondary School, Nilakottai.
2.The petitioner society has been registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Its Registration number is 46 of 2015. According to the petitioner, the society has been functioning as an unregistered body for the last 80 years and the society was running three aided schools, namely, Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Periyanayaki Rengasamy Girls Higher Secondary School, Nadar High School and Nadar Elementary School excluding the unaided Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Periyanayaki Rengasamy Matriculation Higher Secondary School at Nilakottai. The Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Perianayaki Rengasamy Girls Higher Secondary School was started in the year, 1965. The school had been receiving grant from the Government and they are governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.
3.According to the petitioner, the Management of the three schools had been effectively managed and administered by the society through a managing committee duly elected in respect of each of the three schools. According to the petitioner, the respondents 4 to 7 and one other person who were in the management of schools during the relevant time, created a trust, namely, Hindu Nadar Educational Trust, the third respondent herein, through a trust deed dated 23.12.2011 registered as document number 231 of 2011 before the Sub Registrar, Nilakottai. The said trust had been floated in order to takeover the affairs of the petitioner society hither to run as an unregistered body. According to the petitioner, the said trust has been registered only in 2011 and taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner society was unregistered, the said persons wanted to substitute themselves in the petitioner society, as if, they were in management of the school for all these years.
4.In the above said circumstances, the members of the petitioner society had taken a decision to register the society and the same was registered with the Registrar of Society, Dindigul on 11.03.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner society had duly filed Form V, Form VI and Form VII and they had been taken on file by the Registrar of Societies. According to the petitioner, the petitioner society is an educational agency for all the three schools as stated supra and the agency alone had constituted school committee for all the three schools in terms of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 r/w Rules framed thereunder.
5.According to the petitioner society, it had sent a representation dated 29.06.2015 to the respondents 1 and 2 nominating representatives of the educational agency for the school committee of the Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Periyanayaki Rengasamy Girls Higher Secondary School along with the resolution dated 21.06.2015 passed by the petitioner society. Since no action has been taken on the representation, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.18043 of 2015 praying for an issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 29.06.2015 and approve the proposal of the representatives nominated by the petitioner society as members of school committee of said School. This Court has passed an order on 06.10.2015 directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner society dated 29.06.2015 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months.
6.When the matter stood thus, the second respondent has passed the impugned order dated 04.12.2015 in Na.Ka.No.3526/Aa5/2015 rejecting the representation of the petitioner society. According to the second and third respondents, the Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Periyanayaki Rengasamy Girls Higher Secondary School is administered by the Nilakottai Nadar Trust for the past 50 years and therefore, the representation seeking for approval of nomination of the members of the educational agency from the petitioner society was rejected.
7.Refuting the contention and averments of the petitioner society, on behalf of the respondents 3 to 7, it was contended that the impugned order passed by the second respondent cannot be faulted with, since factually and actually the respondent No.3, who are the Management of the educational agency and the schools and the members of the trust were originally part of the society, which was unregistered body and therefore, the members had decided to float the trust in order to formalize their existence legally. Therefore, the second respondent by the impugned proceedings, has recognized their status and passed orders refusing to grant approval to the nomination made by the petitioner society herein.
8.Heard Mr.J.Bharathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7.
9.Mr.J.Bharathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner society by reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would strenuously contend that the third respondent society, which was started only in the year 2011, is trying to usurp the functions of the administration of the petitioner society, which has been existence for 80 years or so. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order passed by the second respondent without taking note of their objection in proper prospective cannot be held to the valid under law. Moreover, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned proceedings does not reflect any adjudication of claim of ownership by the rival claimants and conclusion was reached without proper reasoning, therefore, the impugned order stands vitiated, being a non-speaking order.
10.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7 would strongly contend that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner would not hold good for the reason that the third respondent trust alone was actually in management and administration of the society, educational agency and schools.
11.According to the learned Senior Counsel, the members of the trust were part of the petitioner society originally and the trust came to be formed in 2011 only for streamlining administration of the society in the eye of law and same was done only to prevent any person claiming to be management of the school without the authority of law. The several documents were filed and relied on both the parties claiming ownership of the society and school.
12.I have considered the rival submissions of both parties, perused the materials or record and the pleadings.
13.At the out set the impugned order passed by the second respondent does not reflect that the claims of both the petitioner society and the respondents 3 to 7 have been properly appreciated. The order does not disclose any materials, which was considered for arriving at conclusion one way or other. The order merely says that the third respondent was managing school and therefore, the petitioner society has no claim for seeking approval of their nomination into the school committee. When the parties are claiming rights to the ownership and management of the society and educational agency, it is incumbent upon the second respondent to analyze the rival claim, with reference to all the materials in the reference to each others claims. But the order appears to be cryptic one without any effort by the second respondent in investigating the rival claim of the parties. In such circumstances, that the order passed by the second respondent suffers from non-application of mind, as there was no proper consideration of the rival claims with reference to the materials relied on by both the parties.
14.In view of the above, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order dated 04.12.2015 in Na.Ka.No.3526/AA5/2015 passed by the second respondent cannot held to be valid and therefore, the same is set aside.
15.The second respondent is directed to conduct fresh enquiry into rival claims of the petitioner society and the respondents 3 to7, after giving them adequate opportunity of hearing and their submissions. It is open to the parties to make all the materials available to the second respondent in support of each other claims and such consideration of all the submissions and the materials to be made available, the second is directed to pass considered and reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner and the respondents 3 to 7 are also directed to appear before the second respondent with all the materials immediately after receipt of the copy of the order. The second respondent is directed to pass orders without being influenced by any of the observations made in this writ petition. The second respondent is also directed to take a decision in terms of provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973.
With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the second respondent dated 04.12.2015 in Na.Ka.No.3526/AA5/2015 is set aside and the matter is therefore, remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul District.
2.The District Educational Officer, Dindigul..