AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the second
respondent in his reference Na.Ka. No. 0175/E1/2002 dated 23.01.2002, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pass an
order, approving the petitioner school ""Sree Maheswari Matriculation School"", which is housed at Nos. 35 and 36, 10th Street, Maheswari
Nagar, Hasthinapuram, Chennai-600 064.
It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner is the Managing Trustee of the school, by name, Sree Maheswari Educational Trust. The said school
was started on 25.01.1998 at Hasthinapuram, near Chromepet. The school is fully furnished with class rooms, laboratory, library, computer
centre, children''s park, play ground, sports ground, indoor games and auditorium for common prayers.
The petitioner made an application to the first respondent on 09.09.1998 for approval of the school. All the relevant documents were submitted
along with the application form. Necessary fee was also paid. All other requirements have been complied with. A detailed representation was sent
on 14.06.2001 to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, stating that approval has not yet been granted. The school is situated in an important locality.
It caters to the needs of the residents of the area. In a short span of time, it has improved a lot.
It is further stated in the affidavit that the respondents have accorded approval to many schools, which do not conform to the rules, but the
petitioner has not been granted approval, in spite of repeated reminders. It is also stated that a school, namely, Royal Matriculation School, which
is being run in a thatched shed measuring 1800 sq.ft., in an entire area of 1 "" grounds, has been granted approval by the respondents. Again, one
Neelaram Matriculation Higher Secondary School, which is being run in an area of 3 grounds and is constructed in an area of about 1400 sq.ft.,
has also been granted approval. Comparing those schools, the petitioner school has got more advantages and facilities. The school is housed in an
area of 10,500 sq.ft. The school building alone is in an area of 12,000 sq.ft., besides a play ground of 5 grounds, but the respondents refused to
grant approval by the order impugned, wherein it is stated that the petitioner school has a building in an area of 1650 sq.ft. only; the space is only
9162 sq.ft. and that the land stands in the name of the trustee and not in the name of the school and hence, approval cannot be granted to the
school.
No counter has been filed by the respondents.
Learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that since the land, in which the school is situated, does not stand
in the name of the school but stands in the name of the trustee, approval cannot be granted.
The learned Government Advocate is unable to refer to any rule, which prescribes that the land must stand in the name of the school.
It is common knowledge that large number of schools run in the place, which belongs to individuals, stand in the name of the individuals.
Therefore, it does not appear to be correct to say that the land must stand in the name of the school. Merely because the land stands in the name
of the trustee, it does not prohibit the petitioner school from getting approval; nor approval can be rejected on that ground. Further, on a perusal of
the application submitted by the petitioner, along with the trust deed and the lease deed of the land, in which the school is being run, it is clear that
the area is to the extent of 15,880 sq.ft. and there is a building, which is constructed in an area of more than 10,000 sq.ft. Therefore, the contents
of the order impugned that the building is in an area of 1600 sq.ft. only and that there is an area of only 9162 sq.ft. do not appear to be correct.
No other ground has been specified in the order impugned.
At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that a school, which is run in a thatched shed measuring 1800 sq.ft. in an area of 1
grounds, has been granted approval, which is not rebutted or denied by the learned Government Advocate by filing counter. Therefore, non-filing
of the counter makes this Court to believe that the averments made in the affidavit are true.
Inasmuch as the authorities have granted approval to the schools, which are housed in an area of 1 "" grounds and only 1800 sq.ft., there is no
reason why the petitioner''s request for approval should be rejected. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed.
Writ Petition is allowed, the order impugned is quashed and the respondents are directed to grant approval to the petitioner school within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.