Judgment :- The Petitioner is a Private Aided School and it is a Middle School run in the name of Nehru Middle School in Kuttappattu village, Manikandam Union, Trichirappalli District. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is that at the instance of a rival private school owner, the attempt of the State to broadbase its educational infra structure can be thwarted. 2. According to the Petitioner, they were in existence from the year 1966. The school was upgraded as a Middle School in the year 1978. They are running standards 1 to 8 with a total strength of 559 students. According to the Petitioner, Muthukulam village is having population of 1500. It is stated that there is a Primary School in the Manikandam Panchayat Union situated at I.P.Chatiram within a radius of 2 Kms from the Petitioner school. 3. The policy of the Government for the year 2004-2005 is that it had decided to upgrade 1009 Panchayat Primary Schools into that of Middle Schools and for the year 2002-2003 and 2004-2005, they also created posts of 1879 Junior Grade Teachers for the said purpose. The said policy of the Government was spelt out by G.O.Ms.No.113, School Education Department dated 20.08.2004. Pursuant to the said policy, the Director of Elementary Education issued proceedings dated 23.08.2004, recommending upgradation of schools which are qualified by the G.O. In the annexure to the said letter in respect of Trichirappalli District, 16 schools were qualified for upgradation from Primary Schools to that of Middle schools. For the Manikandam Panchayat Union, three primary schools were qualified to be upgraded to that of Middle Schools as per the conditions imposed by the Director of Elementary Education situated at I.P.Chathiram. The conditions imposed by the Director was that the village should have a minimum population of 500 and above for the upgradation of the school and for joining 6th standard, there should be minimum requirements of 25 students and also there should not be any Middle School/High School/Higher Secondary School within 3 Kms. radius. Apart from this, sufficient infrastructure for the school must exist. 4. radius. Apart from this, sufficient infrastructure for the school must exist. 4. The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order of the first respondent in upgrading the school at I.P.Chathram into Middle school, has filed the writ petition, primarily on the ground that I.P. Chathram is only within the radius of 2 kms from the Petitioners school and therefore, it is against the guidelines of the said G.O. and the school should not be upgraded by the respondents. 5. Even before the admission of the writ petition, an interim-stay was granted on 14.12.2004 in W.P.M.P. (MD) No.3500 of 2004. Subsequently, Notice of motion was also ordered on 13.06.2006. 6. Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Panneerselvam the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Manoharan the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and have perused the records. 7. The argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that no school should come up within a radius of 3 kms, based upon the guidelines issued by the Director of School Education, is misconceived. The learned counsel argues that as the Government had prescribed the guidelines and the same should be followed. The necessity of the Petitioner to come before this court is to challenge the upgradation of the school since it is situated within the radius of 2 kms from the Petitioner school and due to the fear that the strength of the students held by them will come down once the Government school is upgraded as Middle school at I.P. Chathram. 8. In the present case, it is not as if the Petitioner has come forward to run the school under any compulsion. It is the Governments policy to provide compulsory free education to all the children from the age 6 to 14 years and it has been incorporated as a fundamental right in the constitution. Article 21-A of the Constitution of India reads as follows:- "The state shall provide free and compulsory education to all the children of the age 6 to 14 years in such a manner as the State may by law determine." 9. Article 21-A of the Constitution of India reads as follows:- "The state shall provide free and compulsory education to all the children of the age 6 to 14 years in such a manner as the State may by law determine." 9. It is not the case that any new school is coming up in the said area and it has the policy of the State Government to upgrade the existing Primary Schools into that of Middle school, so that the children of that area can have the benefit of higher studies. If there are guidelines issued by the state, it is for the Officers to implement the said guidelines and even such guidelines cannot be enforced at the instance of a rival school owner. 10. In fact, the policy of the Director in prescribing 3kms prohibition rule itself goes against the Legislative Policy of the State set out in the Tamilnadu Compulsory Education Act, 1994. It envisages that the state has to provide schools and parents who did not send their children to the school will be punished. In fact, the legislative prescription found in Tamilnadu provides compulsory education to the children has a history behind it. 11. Originally, an enactment was made granting exemption to parents if no school is situated within a particular distance as notified by the Government. When the bill was sent to the President of India for his assent, it was returned under the plea that the exemption found in Section 5(1) will make the compulsorily education meaningless, subsequently, an amendment was brought deleting the distant rule from the exemption provision. 12. The object behind the Tamil Nadu Act No.49/1997 is as follows:- "The Tamil Nadu Compulsory Elementary Education Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 33 of 1995) provides for compulsory education for every child of school age. According to Clause (1) of Section 5 of the said Act, attendance at an elementary school for a child of school age shall not be compulsory if there is no elementary school within such distance, as may be notified by the Government, from the residence of such child. According to Clause (1) of Section 5 of the said Act, attendance at an elementary school for a child of school age shall not be compulsory if there is no elementary school within such distance, as may be notified by the Government, from the residence of such child. When the bill relating to the said Act was reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President and forwarded to the Government of India for obtaining the assent of the President thereto the Government of India suggested that the said clause (1) of Section 5 of the said Act should be omitted so that it is mandatory for the State Government to provide schools within one kilometre radius of every habitation. This Government accepted the suggestion of the Government of India and informed them that necessary amendment would be made after the said Bill becomes an Act and before the Act is brought into force. Further, it has also been proposed to retain the provision of Sections 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 of the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Act, 1920, (Tamil Nadu VIII of 1920) and the rules made thereunder so as to enable municipal councils to continue the levy of education tax and the Government to continue the contribution to the elementary education fund and to repeal the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Act, 1920, except the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, it has been decided to amend the said Tamil Nadu Act 33 of 1995 for the above purposes." When that is the legislation policy, there is no question of 3 km radius being prescribed by the Director of School Education. 13. Inany event, the Petitioner school cannot be said to be an aggrieved person by the impugned order and the writ petition is instituted by them is misconceived. This court had an occasion to consider a similar plea made by a Private School in the judgment reported in 1997 WLR 862,. AIDED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, ETC., V. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU. After rejecting the contention of a rival school operator, this Court held that he is not a person aggrieved on the question of locating any new school. Paragraph No. 12 of the said judgment reads as follows:- "..12. It is the policy of the Government to establish as many schools as possible in every village and to see that the children are educated. Paragraph No. 12 of the said judgment reads as follows:- "..12. It is the policy of the Government to establish as many schools as possible in every village and to see that the children are educated. Article 45 of the Constitution envisages compulsory education for children. If only there are necessary infrastructure, children can get education. Further, promotion of education and economic interest of the weaker section of the Society is also one of the directive principles of the State Government. Under Articles 46 and 41 of the Constitution of India, which come under the Directive Principles of State Policy, it is one of the main aims of the Government within the limits of its economic capacity to educate not only the weaker section, but also to provide education to all persons. If, to fulfill this aim, schools Petitioners can never be heard to say that if the proposed schools are established, and that too Panchayat Schools, Petitioners can never be heard to say that if the proposed schools are established, their schools will be affected. Petitioners cannot have any locus standi to challenge the policy of the Government. Even if they are not heard by the Government, that is not going to affect their right, since they have no legal right to be heard." 14. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived and will stand dismissed. In spite of clear legal pronouncements and constitutional obligation of the state to provide education by the State the attempt of the Petitioner to forestall such an action flowed from its business motive and the writ petition is a clear abuse of the process of law. In view of the Petitioners attempt to stall a Government school coming up in a nearly area a cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) is imposed on the Petitioner school. The cost is to be handed over by way of demand draft to the Panchayat Union Middle School at I.P. Chathram within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. When this amount is handed over, the Middle School Head Master shall purchase basic books for the use of the children in Middle school Section and report compliance before this Court. 15. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.