Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition had been filed by the petitioner praying for a Writ of Certioraririfed Mandamus, to call for and quash the records pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 14.2.2009, by which direct payment of the grant had been ordered and for a direction to the second the third respondents to hand over the management of the Morning Star Central Aided Higher Elementary School, Thirupakuttai Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District, to the petitioner.
3. It has been stated that the petitioner's father had established the Morning Star Central Aided Higher Elementary School (hereafter referred to as `the School') from classes 1 to 5, at Thirupakuttai Village, in the year 1949. In the year 1954, classes 6 to 8 were started and they have been functioning, till date. The Government had granted aid for running the school and the grants were disbursed through the petitioner's father, till the year 1996. Thereafter, by virtue of a Will executed by the father of the petitioner, the management of the School had been transferred to the petitioner. Thereafter, the grants were being disbursed through the petitioner, till 20.4.1999. However, the petitioner's brother, Sigamani George, had filed a suit in O.S.No.730 of 1995, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam, claiming the right of management of the School. The suit had been transferred to Vellore District and it was re-numbered as O.S.No.232 of 2000. Due to the dispute raised by the petitioner's brother, direct payment of the amounts was being made. However, since the petitioner's brother had died the suit had been dismissed, as it had abated. Thereafter, the first respondent had issued an order, dated 22.12.2003, permitting the petitioner, to draw the government grants and to disburse the salary to the staff. While so, the second respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 14.2.2009, served on the petitioner, on 3.3.2009, in Na.Ka.No.4686/A2/2008, dated 14.2.2009, to make direct payments of the grants. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent does not have the power or jurisdiction to issue the impugned proceedings, dated 14.2.2009. Since the said proceedings had been issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it is illegal and void. There is no dispute between the petitioner and his brother at present, since the suit, in O.S.No.232 of 2000, had been dismissed, on 19.11.2003, due to the death of the petitioner's brother, on 29.12.2000. Since the management of the school had been transferred to the petitioner by way of a registered Will, dated 1.9.1995, executed by the father of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to manage the School, including the right to disburse the grants to the teaching staff and to the employees of the school.
5. Further, by the impugned proceedings, dated 14.2.2009, the second respondent had interfered with the petitioner's right of management of the school, arbitrarily, without following the principles of natural justice. Further, Section 18-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973, is applicable to the present case, as the making of direct payments of the grants is equivalent to the taking over of the management, by appointing a Special Officer. Such a power is vested only with the State Government and it cannot be exercised by the second respondent. Even otherwise, the management can be taken over by an order of the State Government only for reasons of mal administration or for serious lapses or irregularities committed by the management of the School. Even such a power should be exercised by the Government, only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. The learned counsel had also submitted that no show cause notice had been issued by the respondents before the impugned proceedings had been passed. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 14.2.2009, is arbitrary, ilegal and void.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned order, dated 14.2.2009, of the second respondent, had been issued under special circumstances. Since civil cases, with regard to the management of the School, are pending the second respondent had passed the order making direct payment of salaries and other emoluments to the staff of the School. Notices had been issued to the petitioner before the impugned order had been passed. The proceedings of the second respondent, dated 14.2.2009, is in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable to the School and its management. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, it is seen that certain disputes had arisen with regard to the management of the Morning Star Central Aided Higher Elementary School and certain suits had been filed before the concerned Civil Courts in that regard. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the civil suit filed by the brother of the petitioner in O.S.No.232 of 2000, had been dismissed, on 19.11.2003, the learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the dispute has not been resolved, finally.
8. The impugned proceedings, dated 14.2.2009, issued by the second respondent, is not with regard to the taking over of the management of the School, as claimed by the petitioner. It only relates to the making of direct payments to the staff of the School, since many unresolved issues had arisen, with regard to the running of the School. Even though the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that show cause notices had been sent to the petitioner before the impugned proceedings, dated 14.2.2009, had been passed by the second respondent, no records have been shown to substantiate the claim.
9. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it would meet the ends of justice if the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 14.2.2009, is set aside, making it clear that it is open to the respondents to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner, as per the procedures established by law, giving fifteen days time to the petitioner to reply to the said notice, along with the necessary records, to establish his claims. On receipt of the explanation from the petitioner the concerned authority is to pass appropriate orders thereon, considering the claims of the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of thirty days thereafter. Further, it is made clear that until the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 14.2.2009, is revised, modified, withdrawn, or set aside by the appropriate authorities empowered to do so, in accordance with the procedures established by law, as noted above, it would continue to be in operation. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
Index:Yes/No 07-07-2009 Internet:Yes/No csh M.JAICHANDREN,J.
csh To
1.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai-6.
2.The District Elementary Education Officer, Vellore Fort, Vellore-4.
3.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Katpadi Range, having office at Kalpudhur Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District.
Writ Petition No.4556 of 2009 07-07-2009