Judgment :- K.A. SWAMI, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 22nd June, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition 9159 of 1993. As the respondents 1 to 4 are represented through the Special Government Pleader and respondents 5 and 6 are also represented through a counsel and the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. In the Writ Petition, the petitioners sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to act and take necessary proceedings under S. 53 A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and run the affairs of the 5th respondent till the Managing Committee and the School Committee take over. 3. It is the case of the petitioners/appellants that the 5th respondent Lakshmi Harihara High School is run by an educational agency known as Raja Educational Trust at Madras. The further case of the petitioners is that there is a dispute relating to the educational agency, in as much as the Committee of educational agency has become defunct and the dispute has been raised by way of suit before the District Munsifs Court, Sengottah, in O.S. No. 91 of 1992, that no interim order is passed in the suit, therefore respondents 1 to 4 must act under sub-S. (2) of S. 53A of the Act and nominate an officer to discharge the functions of the Educational Agency. 4. Learned single judge has rejected the Writ Petition on the ground that it is open to the State Government to nominate an officer to discharge the functions of the Educational Agency, but, as the discretion is vested in the State Government no mandamus need be issued. 5. S. 53A of the Act reads thus.- “53-A. Settlement of dispute as to Educational Agency, etc. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in S. 53, whenever any dispute as to the constitution of any educational agency, or as to whether any person or body of persons, in an educational agency, in relation to any private school, or as to the Constitution of a school committee, or as to the appointment of secretary of the school committee arises, such dispute may be referred by the persons interested or by the competent authority to the civil court having jurisdiction for its decision. (2) Pending the decision of the Civil court on a dispute referred to it under sub-Section (1) or the making of an interim arrangement by the Civil Court for the running of the private school, the Government may nominate and officer to discharge the functions of the educational agency, the School Committee or the Secretary, as the case may be, in relation to the Private school concerned:” We are now concerned with sub-Section (2) of S. 53-A. It is not disputed that there is a dispute relating to the Constitution of educational agency, pending before the civil court. As per sub-Section (2) of S. 53-A, the State Government is entitled to exercise the power and nominate an officer to discharge the functions of the educational agency, pending the decision of the civil court on a dispute referred to it under sub-Section (1) or making an interim order by the Civil Court for the running of a private school. Sub-Section (1) enables a person interested in the educational institution to refer the dispute to a Civil Court having jurisdiction over the institution relating to the constitution of any educational agency or as to whether any person or body of persons is an educational agency in relation to any private school or as to the constitution of a School Committee or as to the appointment of Secretary of the School Committee. In the instant case, the dispute relates to constitution of educational agency in respect of which the suit has been filed. It is no doubt that the context in which the expression ‘may” in sub-Section (2) of S. 53-A of the Act, it is coupled with duty and it has to be exercised when there is a dispute relating to the matters touching the very administration of a private school, which dispute, if allowed to continue, would seriously affect the very teaching in the school and thereby the interest of the students will suffer and more so, when there is no likelihood of the civil court deciding the suit early or making an interim arrangement for running the private school pending the suit, it becomes obligatory for the State Government to nominate an officer to discharge the functions of the educational agency, the School Committee and the Secretary as the case may be. It is to ensure that during the interregnum, viz. It is to ensure that during the interregnum, viz. pending decision in the suit or making an arrangement by the Civil Court for running the school, the Legislature has thought it fit to empower the State Government to nominate an Officer to discharge the function of an educational agency, the School Committee or the Secretary as the case may be in relation to the private school concerned pending decision of the civil court, when a dispute is referred to it or pending making an interim arrangement by the civil court for the running of the private school. Of course, it may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the State Government should immediately exercise the power or to await the decision of the civil court or the interim arrangement to be made by the civil court for running the school. If there is going to be an undue delay, it would cause damage to the educational institution affecting the teaching and thereby the interests of the students will be affected, the State Government should act and exercise the power and pass an order nominating an officer to discharge the functions of the educational agency. Of course nomination of such officer would come to an end once the suit is decided or an interim arrangement is made by the Civil Court for running the school. Of course nomination of such officer would come to an end once the suit is decided or an interim arrangement is made by the Civil Court for running the school. In the instant case, as there is already a suit filed and an application for interim arrangement is also filed by the plaintiff therein, and as any order passed by the State Government nominating an officer to discharge the functions of the educational agency would be operative only pending the decision of the civil court on the dispute referred to it or making of an interim arrangement by the Civil Court for running the school and as the application filed in this regard in the suit can be directed to be decided within a short period, we consider it appropriate to direct the civil court to take up the application file for making an interim arrangement by the civil court for running the private school in question and decide the same within a month, instead of directing the Government to immediately take up the matter and nominate an officer to discharge the functions of the educational agency, as that order has to cease to operate, if ultimately the civil court were to make an interim arrangement for running the school. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of in the following terms:— The order under appeal is modified. A direction shall issue to the District Munsifs court, Sengottah, Tirunelveli District, to decide the application for making of an interim arrangement for running the private school in question filed in O.S. 91 of 1992 within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the event, and for any reason, the civil court is not able to pass such an order, the State Government shall step in and exercise the power under sub-Section 2 of the S. 53-A of the Act, to nominate an officer to discharge the functions of educational agency, within two weeks thereafter. There will be no order as to costs.