AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru
The petitioner claiming to be a Christian School by name St. Arokia Annai Private School at Selliampatty Village in Palacode Taluk has come
forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the official respondents to consider the application of the 3rd respondent School
to grant CBSE affiliation and also request for No Objection Certificate for the Academic year 2013-2014, strictly subject to the relevant Act and
rules governing grant of NOC and after considering the objection of the petitioner school. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent
School has no infrastructure facilities for running a CBSE School and therefore the authorities while granting No Objection Certificate for starting
the School must take into account all these facts including the objection of the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to accept the locus standi of the
petitioner in coming forward with the prayer in the Writ Petition. It is not the 3rd respondent who has come to this Court seeking for grant of No
Objection Certificate. The objection of the petitioner is to forestall the 3rd respondent in starting the School that too for the academic year 2013-
2014.
It is the case of Mr. J. Srinivasa Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner that in case of No Objection Certificate is granted, his School is likely
to be heard and therefore he has locus standi to bring the objection at this juncture.
As to whether a neighbouring School has right to object for the starting of a School came to be considered by a learned judge of this Court in
Aided Elementary School rep.by M. Rajagopal, Mullichettipatti vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 1997 Writ L.R.862.
This Court held that in such matters, the neighbouring School has no locus standi to bring any Writ Petition to this Court. This Court held that
running of another School will not amount to competition and the neighbouring School have no locus standi to challenge the policy of the
Government, as it is not to offend their right and they have no legal right to be heard. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain
the Writ Petition. It is always open to the authorities to consider the application of the 3rd respondent in accordance with law. But, that does not
mean that the petitioner can file the Writ Petition and seek for a direction to consider the application of the 3rd respondent. The Writ Petition is
thoroughly misconceived and bereft of legal reasons. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.