AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A.M. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Education appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Venkatesh Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the proceedings Rc.No.1783/B2/2021, dated 09.11.2021 withdrawing the recognition (Genius High School) and consequential action of respondent No.4 in sealing the school premises as illegal.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
i) The petitioner school was established in the year 1999. Initially, it was a primary school. Thereafter, it was upgraded as High School. It has 254 students as on today from I to X Class with 16 teaching staff. As per the proceedings dated 23.08.2017, recognition is valid up to 2026-2027.
ii) Late Sama Mohan Reddy was the correspondent of the said school, and after his death, his wife, Mrs. S. Mohana Laxmi is the correspondent.
iii) Originally, late Sama Mohan Reddy and his first wife, Mrs. Sama Sandhya, were the absolute owners and possessors of the property bearing H.No.7-691 on Plot Nos.7/Part, 146, 147 and 149 in Survey No.246, total admeasuring 1480 square yards inclusive of Playground with total built-up area 10,000 square feet (in G+3 Floors), situated at Subash Nagar, Jeedimetla Village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
iv) They had executed a registered lease deed bearing document No.576 of 2007, dated 16.10.2007 in favour of M/s. Sri Sai Krishna Educational Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘Society’) with registration No.6589 of 1999, represented by its correspondent, Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy. The lease period was for a period of fifteen (15) years commencing from 01.09.2007 i.e., from 01.09.2007 to 31.08.2022.
v) Mrs. Sama Sandhya died on 01.04.2014. Thereafter, a registered surrender lease deed bearing document No.5655 of 2014, dated 25.08.2014 was executed by the said Society represented by its correspondent, Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy in favour of Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy, owner of the property.
vi) Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy had sold the said property to respondent No.5 herein, Mr. T. Srinivasa Rao, his wife, Mrs. T. Kavitha and their son, Mr T. Manikanta Vinay, by way of executing three separate registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.5680 of 2014 and 5679 of 2014, both dated 11.08.2014 and 10957 of 2013, dated 11.10.2013, respectively.
vii) Thereafter, respondent No.5, his wife and son had executed lease deeds separately in favour of the said Society represented by its Secretary, Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy, vide registered lease deed bearing document Nos.6699 of 2014 and 6700 of 2014, both dated 01.10.2014 and 12339 of 2013, dated 07.12.2013, respectively. The period of lease agreed under lease deed bearing document No.12339 of 2013, dated 07.12.2013 was for five (05) years w.e.f. 01.12.2013, and the same was expired on 30.11.2018, and the period of lease agreed under the remaining two lease deeds is for three (03) years w.e.f. 01.09.2014, which was expired on 31.08.2017.
viii) Thereafter, respondent No.5 herein, his wife and son had filed three suits separately vide O.S. Nos.330 of 2019, 329 of 2019 and 331 of 2019 against the said Educational Institute, correspondent of the petitioner herein and her children seeking for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits before the XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, respectively. All the said suits were decreed ex parte on 07.12.2020 directing the defendants therein to vacate and hand over the suit schedule property to the plaintiff therein within two (02) months from the date of judgment with a direction to pay arrears of rent.
ix) Since the said society did not comply with the judgment and decree, respondent No.5 herein, his wife and son had filed execution petitions vide E.P. Nos.6, 5 and 7 of 2021 respectively and the same are pending.
x) While the matter stood thus, respondent No.3 had addressed a letter dated 16.07.2021 to respondent No.2 stating that respondent No.4 vide letter dated 04.07.2021 informed about receipt of complaints from a Students’ Union and respondent No.5 herein, owner of the school building alleging that the Management of the school has misled the Education Department by suppressing the factum of surrendering the lease in the year 2014 by the said Educational Society, that the lease was not in existence from the year 2014 and got renewed the school recognition for a period from 2017-18 to 2026-27 by submitting the fake lease document. Thus, respondent No.3 had requested respondent No.2 to take necessary action in accordance with law.
xi) Based on the said report, respondent No.2 had issued a show-cause notice dated 31.07.2021 to the petitioner herein with a request to submit explanation as to why renewal/recognition of the petitioner school should not be withdrawn as per G.O.Ms.No.1, Education Department, dated 01.01.1994. Seven (07) days time was given to the petitioner school to submit explanation. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said show-cause notice, the petitioner herein has not submitted any explanation. Respondent No.3 had visited the school on 28.10.2021 along with respondent No.4 and the said fact was informed to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 08.11.2021.
xii) On the request of respondent No.3, respondent No.4 had also obtained a copy of statement of encumbrance on property and came to know about execution of the aforesaid registered surrender lease deed. Since the petitioner herein has not submitted any reply to the show-cause notice dated 31.07.2021, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 04.10.2021 directed respondent No.3 to conduct final inquiry and submit specific remarks within seven (07) days for taking necessary action in the matter. Despite receipt of the said show-cause notice, the petitioner failed to submit documents of the school. Thus, the present Correspondent of the petitioner school had obtained renewal recognition proceedings dated 23.08.2017 by suppressing the facts and by misleading respondent No.2. Therefore, vide proceedings dated 09.11.2021, respondent No.2 had requested respondent No.3 to take necessary action accordingly and issue instructions to respondent No.4 to hand over all the records of the school and also to take necessary action to adjust the children in the nearby schools and submit compliance report.
Challenging the said order, dated 09.11.2021, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
i) Mr. A.M. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 has not considered the explanation dated 13.08.2021 submitted by the petitioner school to the show-cause notice dated 31.07.2021. Respondent No.2 has not considered the pendency of the aforesaid three (03) suits viz.., O.S. Nos.329 of 2019, 330 of 2019 and 331 of 2019 and also the fact that the petitioner school filed petitions in the said three suits under Order - IX, Rule 13 of the C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree. A second show-cause notice was also served on the petitioner, to which the petitioner had submitted reply, but the same was not considered. At present, there are 254 students, who are prosecuting their studies in the petitioner school. There was no occasion for the petitioner to submit fake lease deed. There is no basis for the said allegation.
ii) He would submit that the alleged lease deed submitted by Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy is the subject matter of litigation in the aforesaid three suits. The said alleged surrender of lease deed bearing document No.5655 of 2014, dated 25.08.2014 executed by the said Society in favour of Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy is also under challenge in the above three suits. The decrees are ex parte. The petitioner herein had already taken steps to set aside those ex parte decrees by way of filing appropriate applications under Order - IX, Rule - 13 of the C.P.C. There was re-constitution of the said society and the daughter and son of the present correspondent of the petitioner school were also inducted as the members of the said society. All the said facts were not considered by respondent No.2 while issuing the impugned proceedings.
iii) He would further submit that the petitioner never submitted any fake document as alleged in the impugned proceedings dated 09.11.2021 and the said allegation is without any basis. Respondent No.2 has come to the said conclusion without conducting proper inquiry.
CONTENTIONS OF OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS:
i) On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Education would submit that the petitioner herein had obtained renewal of recognition proceedings dated 23.08.2017 by misrepresenting the officials of the Education Department and also by suppressing the facts. As on the date of obtaining renewal of recognition proceedings, dated 23.08.2017, lease deed was not in existence. The correspondent of the petitioner school had not produced proper documents basing on which they had obtained renewal of recognition.
ii) He would submit that a complaint was received from respondent No.5 and pursuant to the same, a detailed inquiry was conducted and a show-cause notice was also issued. Since the petitioner herein had not submitted any explanation, respondent No.2 had issued the impugned proceedings dated 09.11.2021 withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner school. Thus, respondent No.2 herein had followed the entire procedure prescribed under law while issuing the impugned proceedings dated 09.11.2021. There is no error in it.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.5:
i) Mr. P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Venkatesh Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.5, would submit that respondent No.5, his wife and son had purchased the subject property under the aforesaid three sale deeds, and they had executed the aforesaid three registered lease deeds in favour of the said Society on the specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. The said lease period was expired, and the said society failed to vacate the subject premises and, therefore, they have filed the aforesaid three suits for eviction and mesne profits. The said suits were decreed.
ii) Learned senior counsel would also submit that despite decreeing the said suits, the said society has not vacated the subject premises and, therefore, they have filed execution petitions. During pendency of the said execution petitions, the said society had filed petitions under Order - IX, Rule - 13 of the C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decrees and the said petitions are pending. However, the petitioner had obtained renewal of recognition by suppressing all the aforesaid facts and by misleading respondent No.2. Therefore, respondent No.5 had submitted a representation to the officials of respondents, who in turn have conducted inquiry and after following due procedure laid down under law, respondent No.2 had issued the impugned proceedings dated 09.11.2021 withdrawing renewal of recognition proceedings in favour of the petitioner herein. There is no error in it.
iii) He would further submit that respondent No.5 is nothing to do with the Committee Members. The earlier society became defunct, and the present society had obtained the said proceedings by suppressing the facts and by misleading the officials of respondents department. As on the date of obtaining the renewal of recognition proceedings, dated 23.08.2017, lease was not in existence. Even as on today, the petitioner school is running basing on the non-existent lease deeds. Therefore, according to him, respondent No.2 had rightly issued the impugned proceedings withdrawing renewal of recognition and there is no error in it.
ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) The above rival submissions and perusal of record would reveal that originally Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy and his first wife Mrs. Sama Sandhya were owners of the subject property. Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy was the correspondent of the said Society. According to the petitioner, it is in existence since 1999. However, it had obtained renewal of recognition on 23.04.2008 for a period of ten (10) years i.e., from 2007-08 to 2016-17 for Classes VI to X. The said Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy and his first wife had executed the above referred registered lease deed bearing document No.576 of 2007, dated 16.10.2007 in favour of the aforesaid society, and the lease is for a period of fifteen (15) years w.e.f. 01.09.2007 to 31.08.2022. Mrs. Sama Sandhya died on 01.04.2014 and, thereafter, the said society represented by its correspondent, Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy had executed a registered surrender of lease deed bearing document No.5655 of 2014, dated 25.08.2014. He had sold the subject property in favour of respondent No.5 herein; his wife and son vide the aforesaid three registered sale deeds who in turn executed the aforesaid three registered sale deeds in favour of the said society. The period of the lease was expired by 31.08.2017 itself. Thereafter, the said lease was not extended. Virtually, as on the date of renewal of recognition obtained vide proceedings dated 23.08.2017, there was no lease in existence, and on the other hand, the aforesaid three suits were filed seeking ejectment of the aforesaid society from the subject property and execution petitions are pending. The said decrees are ex parte decrees. The petitions filed by the said Society under Order - IX, Rule - 13 of the CPC to set aside the said ex parte decrees are also pending.
ii) Referring to the minutes of the aforesaid society, Mr. A.M. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that respondent No.5 herein was also joined as member of the said society and even then, he had lodged the complaint. During pendency of the above said suits, at the instance of respondent No.5, respondent No.2 has issued impugned proceedings withdrawing renewal recognition granted in favour of the petitioner.
iii) To decide the lis involved in the present writ petition, the disputes between the members of the said society are irrelevant. The allegation against the petitioner in the impugned proceedings is that it had obtained renewal of recognition 23.08.2017 by suppressing of facts and misleading the officials. Respondent No.5 herein and his wife and son have filed the aforesaid three suits for ejectment of the aforesaid society and for mesne profits. There is no dispute that the said society represented by its correspondent, late Sama Mohan Reddy had executed a registered surrender lease deed vide document No.5655 of 2014, dated 25.08.2014. There is no challenge of the said surrender of lease deed by way of initiation of appropriate proceedings. As stated supra, on execution of the said surrender lease deed dated 25.08.2014, the registered lease deed bearing document No.576 of 2007, dated 16.10.2007 is not in existence.
iv) It is also relevant to note that the agreed period of lease as per the aforesaid three lease deeds executed by respondent No.5, his wife and son in favour of the aforesaid society was expired. Virtually, there is no lease in existence as on 23.08.2017, the date on which the petitioner society had obtained renewal of recognition.
v) It is also relevant to note that learned counsel for the petitioner has filed copies of resignation letters, minutes of the meeting, affidavits and no dispute letter along with rejoinder to contend that there were no disputes between the members of the aforesaid society.
vi) As discussed above, to test the validity of the impugned proceedings dated 09.11.2021, there is no need to refer the said proceedings. If at all, the members of the said society have any grievance, they have to approach appropriate jurisdictional District Court by filing an application under Section - 23 of the Societies Act, 2001 and the same cannot be considered in the present writ petition. To test the validity of impugned proceedings, the said documents are not necessary.
vii) It is also relevant to note that vide letter dated 24.08.2021, respondent No.2 requested the petitioner to submit specific remarks and the documents to take further course of action basing on second show-cause notice. Show-cause notice is dated 31.07.2021, to which the petitioner herein had not submitted any explanation. Though the petitioner herein is claiming that it has submitted explanation dated 13.08.2021, but there is no proof of submitting the same to respondent No.2. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that though it had submitted its explanation on 13.08.2021, respondent No.2 had not considered the same.
viii) In the impugned proceedings, respondent No.2 has mentioned that the petitioner management had submitted fake documents of lease deed at the time of submission of proposals for renewal of recognition for Classes 1 to X (EM) for a period from 2017-18 to 2026-27 and misled the department by suppressing the facts. However, in the show-cause notice dated 31.07.2021 and also in the counter, respondent No.2 has mentioned that the petitioner herein has suppressed the fact and misled the officials of the respondents. Therefore, the impugned proceedings were issued by respondent No.2 withdrawing the renewal recognition issued in favour of the petitioner herein on the ground of suppression and misrepresentation of fact, but not on the ground of submission of fake documents. Respondent No.2 being the Regional Joint Director of School Education is expected to mention proper language in the impugned proceedings dated 09.11.2021. As stated above, respondent No.2 instead of mentioning “suppression and misrepresentation of fact”, mentioned as “submission of fake documents” which is factually incorrect. However, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the said language used by respondent No.2. Usage of language in a particular document is not the criterion and contents of a particular document are criteria. This Court has to consider the contents of the impugned proceedings dated 09.11.2021.
ix) It is relevant to note that the Public Information Officer of the office of respondent No.2 had furnished the information, dated 24.11.2021 under Right to Information Act, 2005 to respondent No.5 herein stating that the petitioner had submitted the lease deed bearing document No.576 of 2007 at the time of renewal of recognition in the year 2017. The said fact is not disputed by the petitioner herein. It is also relevant to note that respondent No.5, his wife and son have filed Pre-Litigation Case (PLC) before the District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar against late Sama Mohan Reddy, the then correspondent of the aforesaid society and Mrs. S. Mohana Laxmi, the present correspondent vide P.L.C. No.48 of 2016. The same was ended in compromise, wherein the present correspondent i.e., Mrs. Mohana Laxmi, second wife of the said Sama Mohan Reddy, and the said Sama Mohan Reddy are also signatories. In the terms of the said compromise, it is specifically mentioned about the aforesaid three lease deeds executed by respondent No.5 herein and two others and non-payment of the lease amount and that they have admitted that an amount of Rs.68.00 lakhs is due to them towards rent. Mrs. S. Mohana Laxmi, the present correspondent of the petitioner school and her husband Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy agreed to look after the admissions and administration of the school and to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.68.00 lakhs to respondent No.5 and 2 others along with interest and also the salaries to the employees. It is also relevant to note that in the said terms of the compromise, it is specifically mentioned that since members of the said society failed to pay the rent and salaries etc., the present correspondent and her deceased husband agreed to take respondent No.5 herein and 2 others as members of the said society and will continue till the due amounts are discharged to them. However, as discussed above, the said facts are not relevant to decide the validity of the impugned proceedings.
CONCLUSION:
i) As discussed above, as on the date of obtaining renewal of recognition proceedings, dated 23.08.2017, there was no valid lease in favour of the petitioner herein. The lease deed bearing document No.576 of 2007, dated 16.10.2007 was not in existence in view of surrender of lease by virtue of execution of registered surrender of lease deed bearing document No.5655 of 2014, dated 25.08.2014. Even then, the petitioner herein had submitted the lease deed bearing document No.576 of 2007, dated 16.10.2007 and obtained renewal of recognition proceedings dated 23.08.2017 by suppression and misrepresentation of facts. The impugned proceedings were issued by respondent No.2 withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner school by following the procedure and giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein by serving a show-cause notice and conducting an inquiry and, therefore, there is no error in it. The petitioner herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned proceedings by this Court.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
ii) The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, and the interim order passed by this Court on 12.11.2021 in I.A. No.1 of 2021 stands vacated by allowing I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2022.
iii) However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.