AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—Mr. K.M. Vijayakumar, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. A. Sivaji, learned Counsel takes notice on behalf of the 3rd respondent.
By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
This writ petition is filed against the order of the 1st respondent dated 13.04.2010, by which, the 1st respondent has permitted the 3rd respondent to continue to be a Secretary of Hindu Primary School, Chattikinathupatti.
It is the case of the petitioner that the said school was started by the community way back in the year 1950 and it was thereafter registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act in 1960 and that was controlled by the 3rd respondent.
It is the further case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has allowed the Registration of the Society to be lapsed and thereafter he continued himself to be the educational agency of the School. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the year 2005, under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the Society was again registered as a new Society by the petitioner as the Secretary.
It is also the further case of the petitioner that in spite of the petitioner having been registered as a Society in the year 2005, the claim of the petitioner to recognize it as educational agency, was not considered by the educational authorities favourably, on the ground that the 3rd respondent continues to be the individual educational agency of the School and therefore a suit in O.S. No. 598 of 2005 came to be filed by the 3rd respondent, which is pending before the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur and the said suit is stated to be a suit for injunction, however in respect of the Management of the School, while the 3rd respondent as a plaintiff, claiming himself to be entitled to continue the management in the school, on the other hand, the petitioner, the organisation of the community claiming to be entitled to have the management of the school.
In the meantime, on the basis of a direction given by this Court in a writ petition filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(MD) NO. 6161 of 20089, the 1st respondent after conducting an enquiry has passed the present impugned order.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been given proper opportunity to represent before the 1st respondent to establish their case by producing the various records to show that from 1950 onwards, the school was started by the community and it was registered in the year 2005.
It is an admitted fact that in respect of payment of teaching grant, the direct payment system is invoked and it is stated that some other writ petitions regarding direct payment and certain contempt petitions are also pending.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as far as the 2nd respondent, the educational authority is concerned, as per the records maintained by them, the school stands in the name of the 3rd respondent as an individual educational agency as on date and the petitioner, who has started a society in the year 2005 has not chosen to file necessary documents before the educational authorities so as to enable them to decide the status of the petitioner.
In such view of the matter, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is based on the record and cannot be said to be either perverse or otherwise. On the other hand, it is admitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent that the suit filed by the 3rd respondent of course for an order of injunction is pending, in which the decision has to be taken as to who is entitled to have the right of administration of the school.
In such view of the matter and considering the fact of the pendency of the suit, the decision in the suit is the proper remedy for the purpose of settling the issue, I am of the view that the civil court can be directed to consider the suit as one u/s 53(A) of Tamilnadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and also to direct the civil court to decide the issue at an earlier point of time.
The learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that already such direction was issued by this Court in a Civil Revision Petition and in spite of it, because of the attitude of the petitioner, the suit is unable to be proceeded with and it is his submission that P.W.1 was examined and the trial has already commenced and the same is pending. In such circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent.
It is the case of the educational authority that from their records, the 3rd respondent stands as an educational agency as on date and it is not possible for the 1st respondent to take a different decision and therefore, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the 1st respondent and thus this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Since the suit is the place where the appropriate remedy can be arrived by a final decision, the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.598 of 2005 by treating as one u/s 53(A) of Tamilnadu Tamilnadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, by deciding the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in the manner known to law. The trial shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity to both parties. It is needless to say that the civil court shall not be influenced by any of the observation made in this petition.
In the impugned order, the 1st respondent has recognised the 3rd respondent as a Secretary of the School and directed the second respondent to pass appropriate orders. As it is seen in the impugned order, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders as per the impugned order of the 1st respondent within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.