IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.22885 of 2014 BETWEEN Padmashali Society for Education and Rural Development, SPSR Nellore District and another.
AND ... PETITIONERS Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. M.V. PRATAP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR. GHANTA RAMA RAO For MR. D. SUDARSHAN REDDY – R4 & R5 SMT. A. PADMA – R2 and R3 The Court made the following:
ORDER:
One Padmashali Society and its correspondent are the petitioners herein and the writ petition though directed against the authorities under the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) i.e. respondents 1 to 3, the relief sought for is aimed at the fourth respondent society and the college run by it. The writ petition alleges inaction of respondents 1 to 3 in taking action against respondents 4 and 5 for operating and running the fifth respondent college without requisite permission under the Act and the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Intermediate Education (for short ‘the Board’) and seeks consequential action to be taken against respondents 4 and 5.
2. It is evident from the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the first petitioner society has been running an intermediate college viz. Priyadarshini Junior College at Podukalur since 2001-2002 and it appears that since the first petitioner was unable to manage the said college, under a resolution of the society and in the executive meeting dated 20.08.2010, it was resolved to transfer the management of the college to the fourth respondent society. Pursuant to the said resolution and the acceptance of the fourth respondent to run the said college, the Government approved the said transfer and issue G.O.Rt.No.90 Higher Education (IE-II) Department dated 17.02.2011. Consequently, the fourth respondent is running the fifth respondent college but in the name and style of fourth respondent society but the affiliation is being continued in the name of “Priyadarshini Junior College”.
3. Petitioner alleges that since 2010 the fourth respondent has not taken any steps to change the name of the college nor has obtained requisite affiliation or approvals of the Board nor has complied with various rules and regulations of the Board. It is also alleged that the complaint against respondents 4 and 5 was made before the Hon’ble Lokayukata by one of the lecturers. As per the orders, the third respondent was directed to conduct inspection by the second respondent and submit a report. Petitioner states that the said report points out various violations by the fourth respondent including unauthorized use of the name of the fourth respondent society while running the fifth respondent college. Petitioner, however, alleges that though show cause notice was given by the second respondent to respondents 4 and 5 on 18.10.2013, no further action is taken against respondents 4 and 5. It is also stated that the second petitioner made a detailed representation dated 24.07.2014 but respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any action. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. Counter affidavit is field by the second respondent stating,
inter alia, that in terms of the G.O.Rt.No.90 dated 17.02.2011, referred to above, the Board required the fourth respondent to submit fixed deposit receipt for an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs towards corpus fund and produce a registered lease deed of the building and particulars of playground in favour of the fourth respondent and accordingly,
the fourth respondent is stated to have submitted an FDR, a lease deed for five years from 27.03.2012 to 26.03.2017 for ACC sheds instead of providing RCC accommodation and playground is beyond 5 KM distance from the college as per the norms. It is also stated that the fourth respondent requested for change of name of the college on 20.06.2012 but no orders were passed in view of shortfall in compliance by the fourth respondent, as above. However, provisional affiliation was granted for the academic year 2010-2011 and the further affiliation for the academic years 2011-2013 is stated to have not been extended due to shortfall. It is also stated that notices were given to the fourth respondent on 22.08.2014 seeking explanation from the fourth respondent within seven days to show cause with regard to disaffiliation of the college and it is stated that appropriate action will be taken if reply is received.
5. The counter affidavit, further, states that the second petitioner started running SPBVD Junior College under the first petitioner society’s management from the year 2012-2013 and the first petitioner is stated to have signed Form-II affiliation proposal and enclose a valid lease deed and sent it to the Board. However, the second petitioner is stated to have withdrawn the FDR without permission of the Board. Para 9 of the counter sets out various steps taken by the Board regarding functioning of the fifth respondent college by the fourth respondent society including a final show cause notice dated 22.08.2014 for disaffiliation.
6. After noticing the aforesaid averments in the counter affidavit, this Court passed an interim order dated 26.09.2014:
“In view of the statement made in Para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education, government of Andhra Pradesh, that affiliation of the 4th respondent Society is not extended from the academic years 2011-2013 onwards due to certain shortfalls, the 4th respondent shall not run the Junior College without obtaining specific permission or affiliation.”
7. The fourth respondent has since filed a counter affidavit along with a vacate petition stating that they have taken over the fifth respondent college from the first petitioner society, as per the resolution of the petitioner society, but it was not within their knowledge regarding expiry of the lease period of the petitioner by 27.08.2010 and thereafter, the fourth respondent society has taken steps to obtain a fresh lease deed in its favour for the period 2012-2017. It is, further, stated that the fourth respondent has taken various steps including making appropriate application to the competent authority seeking permission to change the name of the college but that request is still pending consideration. It is also stated that the fourth respondent did not receive any notice from A.P. Lokayukta and only on 19.06.2012, they received a notice.
8. Fourth respondent, further, states that after taking over the college from the first petitioner society, it has complied with all the deficiencies and requirements, as pointed out by the competent authority except for providing RCC building and to that extent, it is stated that the fourth respondent has already made an appropriate request to grant them time up to academic year 2015-2016 and they have undertaken to provide RCC building by then. Fourth respondent also states that because it is a rural area they are unable to get 5000 sft building. Hence, to that extent only compliance could not be made. It is also stated that all the notices, issued by the Board, from time to time, have already been replied to and request of the fourth respondent for extension of affiliation, change of name are all pending with the Board and appropriate inspection is also carried out by the Board confirming the fulfillment of all deficiencies pointed out by the Board except providing RCC building. It is stated that about 400 students are studying and as such, the interim order deserves to be vacated in the interest of institution and the students of respondents 4 and 5.
9. It is evident from the above that there is a controversy with regard to compliances under the Act and the rules and regulations of the Board, which are, allegedly, not fulfilled by respondents 4 and 5.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the transfer of the college by the petitioner to the fourth respondent is not disputed. However, learned counsel justifies the present wit petition on the ground that as a member of the pubic also he can insist due compliance under the Act by the fourth respondent. Learned counsel also urges that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought to take note of the deficiencies in lack of affiliation, lack of approval of name and the action of the fourth respondent in running the college by issuing pamphlets in the name of the fifth respondent and thereby, misleading the public and the students. Learned counsel placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in MOHAMMED HANIF v. THE STATE OF ASSAM[1] in support of his submission that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must invoke public law remedy in the present case and direct appropriate action against respondents 4 and 5.
11. Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5, submits that the writ petition itself is liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of bonafides, as the petitioners, having transferred the college to the fourth respondent, want to ensure that the fifth respondent college does not run so as to facilitate another college established by the petitioners. Learned senior counsel submits that the transfer was already approved in favour of the fourth respondent by the Government by issuance of G.O., referred to above and states that after taking over the college, they came to know of the deficiencies and requirements left unfulfilled by the petitioners and they have taken steps to comply with all the deficiencies and have fulfilled all the requirements except to the extent of providing RCC building for which an undertaking to provide the same by academic year 2015-2016 is already given. Learned senior counsel places strong reliance upon the counter affidavit of the second respondent and the record to establish that it is the petitioners, who forged the lease deed, as the lease deed, though executed in 2000, it was made to appear as if it was executed in 2006. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that para 12 of the counter affidavit of the fourth respondent shows that the petitioners have established another junior college in the name of SPSBVD Junior College, which has a very low strength and as such, is interested in getting the fourth respondent’s college closed down.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on other hand, submits that a detailed reply affidavit as well as an additional affidavit is filed pointing out that the fourth respondent is running fifth respondent college without approval of change of name and without affiliation and as such, under public law remedy, this Court ought to intervene in the matter.
13. I have considered all the rival submissions. While it appears in the first blush that that the fourth respondent society is running the fifth respondent college without requisite affiliation and without fulfillment of necessary preconditions, on a detailed examination of the record including the stand of the second respondent, it is evident that the fourth respondent has made appropriate applications for approval of change of name as well as affiliation and though provisional affiliation was granted to them for one year in 2010- 2011, a further extension of the said affiliation for further academic years 2011-2013 is withdrawn by the Board on the ground of non-fulfillment of deficiencies. It is also evident that the inaction alleged by the petitioners against respondents 2 and3 is also not correct inasmuch as respondents 2 and 3 have taken various steps by issuing notices and issuing directions and also had imposed fine of Rs.50,000/- on the fourth respondent out of which the fourth respondent has deposited Rs.10,000/- and sought three months time to deposit the balance amount. The various steps taken by respondents 2 and 3, as set out in para 9 of the counter of the second respondent, also state that a final notice for disaffiliation is given to the fourth respondent on 22.08.2014 and that appropriate action would be taken after receiving reply from the fourth respondent. Evidently, therefore, the allegation of inaction made by the petitioners against respondents 2 and 3 is not established by the petitioners.
14. I am also not satisfied with the bonafides of the petitioners, in view of the specific averment of the fourth respondent in para 12 of its counter affidavit that the petitioner has opened another college in the name of SPSBVD Junior College and in order to augment the strength, has been making efforts to ensure that the fourth respondent society’s college is closed down. In the reply affidavit of the petitioners, except general denial of the averments of the counter, there is no specific denial of averments of the fourth respondent. Thus, evidently, having transferred the management of the college to the fourth respondent, the petitioners have shown over enthusiasm in pursuing their action to establish that the fourth respondent is unable to run the college by pointing out defects and deficiencies. As the fourth respondent’s counter shows that it has fulfilled all the deficiencies except providing RCC building and an appropriate undertaking to the extent of RCC building is already given by the fourth respondent, I am of the view that no directions from the Court are called for, as respondents 2 and 3, in any case, as discussed above, have taken appropriate steps. Reply to the final show cause notice for disaffiliation is, therefore, required to be considered by the Board and appropriate orders therein would be passed by respondents 2 and 3. Hence, since respondents 2 and 3 are already taking all necessary action to ensure compliance of rules and regulation of the Board and the Act by respondents 4 and 5, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 28, 2014 DSK
[1] 1969 (2) SCC 782