Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is the manager of an unaided school situated in Thrithala Educational Sub District. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has re- submitted Ext.P1 application, after curing the defects, to the 3rd respondent to be transmitted to the 2nd respondent for according the necessary recognition to the school, the same has not been forwarded.
3. On instructions, the learned Government pleader submits that the 3rd respondent has already forwarded Ext.P1 application to the 2nd respondent, who in turn would further process the application and forward it to the 1st respondent, the W.P.(C) No.25467 of 2014
2
competent authority, to take a decision on the issue of recognition.
Since the grievance raised by the petitioner is redressed in as much as Ext.P1 application has been forwarded by the 3rd respondent, the writ does not survive for further consideration. If Ext.P1 has been already received and pending with the 2nd respondent, the said authority may as well further process it and forward it to the 1st respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months. Accordingly, recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the application stands forwarded in the manner required by the petitioner, the writ petition is closed.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE
sj29/10