AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru
The petitioner is a Secretary of a registered Society. It is the stand of the petitioner that the third respondent was given power of attorney to run teethe institution established by the petitioner association. But on the contrary, the third respondent acting in the role of an educational agency and usurp the property in the school given to them for only management. Notwithstanding with their objection by the impugned order dated 19.08.2010, the education department has recognised the third respondent as an educational agency. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition has been filed.
Heard Mr. M. Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel reiterate the contention raised in the Writ petition. Mr. S.C. Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2.
The subject matter of the Writ petition is essentially a dispute between the ownership of the property as well as the control over the educational institution said to have been established by the petitioner association. As the third respondent is only a power of attorney holder or the right of management, has been transferred to him is essentially a question of fact. The Supreme Court has held that the control over educational agency issued cannot be gone into in a Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the very same act in Swamy Atmananda Vs. Swami Bodhananda and Others, the Supreme Court has held that entertaining of a Writ petition for such matter is misconceived and the High Court should not entertain such a Writ petition to decide as to who is the owner of the property and the management of the educational institution. Subsequently, interpreting Section 53(A) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, the Supreme Court once again held that even if the authority do not refer the matter for determination of the civil suit, it is always open to the parties to institute civil suit to establish their proprietary right over the property and this question of law has been amplified by the Supreme Court in Swamy Atmananda and Others Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Others, Under these circumstances, entertaining of the Writ petition is misconceived. Hence, the Writ petition stands dismissed. This will not prevent the petitioner from instituting appropriate suit before the appropriate Civil Forum. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.