Sri Sharada Vidya Mandir Educational Society vs Government of A.P. and Another

G. Bikshapathy, J.—The Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 2-12-1993 as illegal and void.

The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. One of the principle aim and objects of the society is to establish the institutions and to impart job oriented education among the young generation in Vocational Training. Keeping this aim in view, the petitioner made an application to the 1st respondent seeking permission to establish Industrial Training Institute at Wanaparthy. The petitioner submits that in Wanaparthy, there is no Industrial Training Institute and even within the radius of 20 K.Ms., there is no such Institution, hence the establishment of I.T.I, is essential in the area. For the purpose of establishing the Institution, the petitioner also secured building on lease. The petitioner filed necessary application before the Minister seeking the approval for starting the Institute. The same was forwarded by the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Employment & Training, Hyderabad through his letter dated 10-11-1993 to the Government. In the said letter it has been stated that the petitioner society has also paid a corpus fund of Rs. 1 lakh on 4-9-1992. However, by impugned order dated 2-12-1993, the Government rejected the request of the petitioner for establishment of the I.T.I, on the ground that it is not feasible of compliance. Therefore the said order is assailed before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for establishment of an I.T.I, the petitioner is required to comply with the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms. No. 123, dated 27-3-1985 and G.O.Ms. No. 243, dated 19-9-1990. The petitioner submits that he has complied with all the conditions mentioned in the said orders of the Government and there is no impediment in the way of granting the permission. However, in the impugned order, no reasons were given as to the rejection of the request. Even the amount which was directed to be returned by the Government is still kept with the 2nd respondent and no action has been taken till to-day to review the matter a fresh. The petitioner again submits that the Government by notification dated 20-12-1995 also invited the applications for starting the I.T.I''s from August, 1996. Therefore, he submits that it is a fit case where the petitioner should be granted the permission and the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the application on the ground that it is not feasible of compliance is absolutely illegal and without any data.

From the letter dated 10-11-1993 issued by the 2nd respondent, it is noticed that the petitioner society was not approved by the State Level Expert Committee, but the learned counsel for petitioner submits that at no point of time the committee has inspected the institution and therefore the question of non-approval by the Expert Committee does not arise. Inasmuch as the corpus fund is already with the Commissioner and since the Petitioner submits that he has already established the necessary paraphernalia for commencement of the institution in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Government, I am inclined by dispose of the Writ Petition with the directions.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that the 1st respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner afresh without reference to the reasons given in their memo dated 2-12-1993. If the petitioner/applicant possesses the eligibility criteria as per the guidelines issued by the authorities, the appropriate order shall be passed by the Respondents. This exercise shall be done by the Respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that the application of the petitioner shall be processed in preference to other applications which are received in pursuance of the notification dated 20-12-1995.

There shall be no order as to costs.