AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
The petitioner claims the right of management over the school established by his grand father. It is the case of the petitioner that his grand-father S.K. Karuppasamy died on 04.06.2006. Thereafter, the legal heirs of said S.K.Karuppasamy claimed that they are the educational agency and claimed absolute right as against ownership of the school. No secretary was appointed by the educational agency and in view of the dispute, the school was directly administered by the department.
In the meanwhile one the sons of the said S.K. Karuppasamy obtained approval of his name as Secretary of the School without reference to the educational agency and suppressing the real constitution of the educational agency. The petitioner''s father namely Soochar predeceased his brother S.K. Karuppasamy, who was then Secretary. Therefore, the petitioner was under the impression that being the legal heirs, he will also be eligible to be a member of the educational agency.
The petitioner sent a representation on 03.06.2011 to the respondents 1 and 2 claiming ownership of the school along with no objection certificate given by the legal heirs of Karuppakonar to the said S.K.Karuppasamy and also claiming to administer the school on behalf of all legal heirs. Since the representation was not considered, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to consider his representation.
When the matter came up on 28.06.2011, this Court ordered notice. However, the question of petitioner sending a representation and seeking for considering the representation will not arise as the subject matter of approval of transfer of permission of the educational agency is covered by Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules framed hereunder. Under Rule 7, the petitioner has to approach the competent authority for approving any change in the constitution of the educational agency or to approve the transfer of management. The Competent authority is provided in the very same Rule.
The application for approval of a change in the constitution of the educational agency shall be in Form III. The Form III provided under the Act provides for several particulars to be given. Unless and until the petitioner satisfies the statutory rule, the question of this Court ordering a direction to consider the representation by the authorities will not arise recognizing the petitioner and his mother and his sisters. The writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, this will not prevent the petitioner from taking appropriate legal steps to get himself the control over the educational agency of the school, which is allegedly established by his grand-father. No costs.