Judgment : This writ petition is filed to quash the letter of the first respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.6060/B6/2004 dated 27.07.2004 and forbear the respondents from in any manner interfering with the right of the petitioner to continue the school at the existing school building at Nehru Street, Tindivanam. Prayer In W.P. No.17622 Of 2007 This writ petition is filed to quash the letter No.R116554 of 2007 dated 21.04.2007 of the first respondent herein directing the respondents 3 to 6 to demolish the petitioner school building and take necessary action to shift the school to some other place. 2. Both the above writ petitions have been filed by the Muslim Aided Middle School, run by Tagore Educational Society, Tindivanam. 3. The brief facts as culled out from the affidavits are as under:.The petitioner school was established in the year 1937 and was granted permanent recognition by the State Government in the year 1945. The school is being run in a tenanted premises which belongs to Vedavalli Trust, Tindivanam. Upto the year 1981, the School was run by one Shiek Mohammed and due to his advanced age, he was not able to run the school. Therefore, the Vedavalli Trust staked a claim to take over the management. But the erstwhile trustees transferred the school to Tagore Educational Society. Due to the claim and counter claim, for period of 17 years from 1981 to 1998, the school was being run by the Assistant Educational officer and thereafter by order dt.111. 1998 the District Elementary Educational Officer recognised the Secretary of the Tagore Educational Society as the Educational Agency. From the year 1998 onwards, the petitioner school is run by the Tagore Educational society. 4. Though the strength of the school was 1200 in the year 1981, it was reduced to 372 in the year 1988. The school building comprises of a terraced ground floor and a brick and a wall structure on the first floor with thatched roofings. The building is in a good condition which is well maintained by the school management. 5. Though the strength of the school was 1200 in the year 1981, it was reduced to 372 in the year 1988. The school building comprises of a terraced ground floor and a brick and a wall structure on the first floor with thatched roofings. The building is in a good condition which is well maintained by the school management. 5. Due to the misunderstanding between the Secretary of Tagore Educational society and the Vedavalli Trust, the petitioner school filed a suit in O.S. No.109 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif court, Tindivanam along with I.A. No.611 of 1999 for an order of injunction restraining the Vedavalli Trust from evicting the petitioner otherwise than in accordance with law from the building in respect of which the petitioner is a tenant. On 22.03.1999, an order of interim injunction was granted as prayed for and the suit is still pending. 6. The Tahsildar, Tindivanam by proceedings dt.28. 1999 granted the Structural Stability certificate for a period of 3 years from 1. 1999 to 312. 2002. When the petitioner applied for renewal for the said certificate, for the period 1. 2003 to 31.03.2004 the Tahsildar returned the application by stating that the petitioner has to resubmit the application for a period from 4. 2004 to 31.03.2007. The petitioner after getting a Sanitary certificate from the competent authority on 7. 2004, applied to the Tahsildar on 20.7.2004 for grant of license under the provisions of Tamilnadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act 1965 and the said application is still pending. 7. In the meanwhile on 17. 2004 a major fire broke out in a private school at Kumbakonam which resulted in the death of 100 small school children. This untoward incident was taken advantage of by the Vedavalli Trust to its ulterior motive of evicting the petitioner school from its building. 8. On 17. 2004, the Tahsildar issued a notice to the petitioner stating that during the joint inspection of the school by the Educational authorities, fire service authorities and Municipal authorities, it was found that the wall/roof of the class room was made up of flammable materials and therefore, why the building license should not be cancelled. The District Collector, Villupuram, by circular dt.17. The District Collector, Villupuram, by circular dt.17. 2004 directed the petitioner school to replace the thatched roof with non-flammable material by 30.7.2004 and if the petitioner failed to do so, the recognition of the school would be cancelled. Immediately, the petitioner removed the thatches in the first floor and as the strength of the school children itself is 372 only classes are held in the existing class room in the ground floor which did not have any thatched roofing or any other inflammable materials. 9. But the District Elementary Educational Officer issued a notice dt.27. 2004 stating that during the visit to the school on 27. 2004, it was found that the school building and the class rooms of the school were in a dilapidated and ruined condition and they were not safe for the children. The petitioner was further directed to make proper arrangements for the safe conduct of the school in a pucca building before 30.7.2004 and failure to do so by 30.7.2004, the school would be liable for withdrawal of recognition and prosecution for criminal negligence. It was further reiterated that classes shall not be conducted in the existing building till alternative arrangements were made as stated above. To this notice dt.27. 2004, the petitioner sent a reply stating that the thatched roof in the first floor was already removed and the classes have to be held in the ground floor only, which is in a good condition. The petitioner for better upkeep of the school building started doing minor repair work which were interfered with by the Vedavalli Trust and therefore the matter was reported to the Sub-Inspector of Police on 27. 2004 by making a written complaint. 10. But without considering the reply as well as the real facts, the District Educational Officer passed the impugned order on 27. 2004, stating that for the purpose of recognition of the school, the school building should be one which is licensed under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Public Buildings Licensing Rules 1965 and since the petitioner school building was in a dilapidated condition and was not safe for the children, the petitioner should stop functioning in the present building and the classes should be held in some other safe building from 8. 2004, failing which the recognition of the petitioner school would be cancelled. 11. Challenging the order dt.27. 2004, failing which the recognition of the petitioner school would be cancelled. 11. Challenging the order dt.27. 2004, the writ petitioner filed writ petition No.22232 of 2004. This court admitted the writ petition on 8. 2004 and stayed the withdrawal of the recognition of the school alone until further orders in W.P.M.P. NO.26927 of 2004. 9. 12. One Prof. P.Kalyani filed W.P.M.P. No.34357 of 2004 to implead himself as the R4 and this court by order dt.8. 2005 allowed the impleading petition. 13. The Government authorities filed W.V.M.P. No.1470 of 2004 to vacate the interim stay granted on 8. 2004. 14. In the affidavit filed in support of the Vacate stay petition, the District Elementary Educational Officer stated that the Tahsildar, Tindivanam issued a prohibitory order as the building of the school is not having a license under the Tamilnadu Public Buildings licensing Act. When the Annual Inspection of the school was taken up on 112. 2002 and 20.12.2002, the Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer reported that it is not safe to accommodate the children in the building and the Secretary of the school shall take necessary action to repair the building on a war footing. It is further stated that the school is having a structural stability certificate upto 312. 2004 only. As the existing building is not safe and no license was obtained, impugned order was correctly passed and hence they prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition itself. 15. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit wherein it was stated that the building is well maintained and there is absolutely no risk whatsoever to the safety and security of the children. The petitioner has taken all steps for obtaining the building license and they have received no objection certificate from the Fire Service department on 28.01.2005. They also obtained a certificate dt.7. 2004 from the Sanitary Inspector of the Municipality. A Consulting Civil Engineer and a Structural Engineer inspected the building and issued a statement in Form A and Form B certifying that the school building is structurally sound and is sufficient to accommodate 400 persons. The petitioner on 211. 2004 applied to the Executive Engineer (Building) P.W.D., Villupuram requesting him to provide a Structural safety certificate for the building and the same is pending. The petitioner on 211. 2004 applied to the Executive Engineer (Building) P.W.D., Villupuram requesting him to provide a Structural safety certificate for the building and the same is pending. The parent teacher association of the school unanimously passed a resolution on the steeps taken by the school management in keeping the building in a good condition. More than 100 parents have voluntarily given statements stating that there is no danger to the safety and security of the children and the school may continue in the said place. In the light of the above facts, the petitioner is ready for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner or any other technical person to be appointed by this court to inspect the school building and submit a report to this court. 16. When the matter stood like this, another order was passed by the Special Officer to Chief Minister Cell of the Government of Tamilnadu stating that the school building is 129 years old, which is dilapidated and crumbled and the life of the students are unsafe. A complaint was received from the Chairman of the Vedavalli Trust and on that basis directions have been issued to the authorities to take immediate action to demolish the existing building and to shift the school to some other premises. Pursuant to the order dt.24. 2007, the Revenue Divisional Officer fixed a spot inspection on 5. 2007. Aggrieved by the impugned order dt.24. 2007, the writ petitioner has filed W.P. No.17622 of 2007 and this court admitted the writ petition on 5. 2007 and issued rule nise. In M.P. No.2 of 2007 this court granted interim stay of the order. 17. The Vedavalli Trust, the R8 in the above writ petition filed M.P. No.3 of 2007 for vacating the interim stay dt.5. 2007. 18. In the counter affidavit filed by the 8th respondent, it is stated that the building is in a dilapidated condition and it can fall down at any point of time. The building is also not having a valid license under the Tamilnadu Public Building (Licensing) Act. It is denied that the building is well maintained. It is admitted that the deponent of the counter affidavit made a representation to the Chief Minister Cell and on that basis the Special Officer directed the authorities to demolish the building and shift the school to a pucca place. It is denied that the building is well maintained. It is admitted that the deponent of the counter affidavit made a representation to the Chief Minister Cell and on that basis the Special Officer directed the authorities to demolish the building and shift the school to a pucca place. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition itself. 19. A Committee by name Town Education and Peoples Development Committee, Tindivanam, filed M.P. No.4 of 2007 praying to implead the Centre as the R9 and this court by order dt.13.09.2007 allowed M.P. No.4 of 2007. 20. In view of the conflicting claims with regard to condition of the school building, this court, with the consent of all the parties to both the writ petitions, on 10. 2007 appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the school building by engaging the services of Dr.V.Soundarajulu, a renowned Structural Engineer and to submit a report. 21. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the building and submitted a report dt.210. 2007. 22. In his report, the Advocate Commissioner has stated after giving notices to all the parties, he visited Tindivanam and inspected the school building on 110. 2007 with the Structural Engineer. It is stated by him that excepting a portion measuring about 319.50 sq.ft. area the rest of the building are structurally sound as per the Engineers report and the report given by Structural Engineer together with photos and sketch were annexed. 24. In his report, the Structural Engineer has stated that the building consist of Madras Terrace Roof partly and country tiled roof partly. The total plinth area of the building is 5259.13 sq.ft. out of which 2984.63 sq.ft. of front area is being used for class rooms and 2274.50 sq.ft. of rear area is used for mid meals and dining. 25. Out of the total 5259.13 sq.ft. area, only 319.50 sq.ft. of Madras tile area needs to be repaired immediately since it is in a dangerous condition. All other balance Madras terrace area and the tiled roof area are in good condition and it would not endanger human habitation. The Engineer further adds that this stability assurance given by him for the balance area is for a minimum period of 3 years from 110. 2007, the date of inspection. 26. All other balance Madras terrace area and the tiled roof area are in good condition and it would not endanger human habitation. The Engineer further adds that this stability assurance given by him for the balance area is for a minimum period of 3 years from 110. 2007, the date of inspection. 26. Heard Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.Geetha, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the Government/ respondents, Mr.R.Yashod Vardan, learned Senior counsel for the impleading respondents in W.P.No.22232 of 2004, Mr.S.Thirumalvalavan, the learned counsel for the Trust, Mr.D.Vijendiran, the learned counsel for the impleading respondent in W.P. No.17622 of 2007. I have also gone through the documents and records submitted by them in support of their submissions. 27. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the building in which the school is being run is not in a crumbling condition as alleged by the authorities. But, it is admitted by them that they have applied for license under the Tamilnadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act 1966 but no order was yet passed by the authorities. 28. But the stand of the Government and the landlord Trust is that the building is in a dangerous condition and as no license was obtained under the licensing Act, the school is to be shifted to a safer place. 29. In view of the conflicting claims made by the parties about the condition and stability of the building, this court with the consent of the parties appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the building along with an expert in that field and to submit a report. 30. In the report submitted by Dr.V.Soundarajulu, a professional and Chartered Structural Engineer, he has clearly stated that out of the total 5259.13 sq.ft. area, only 319.50 sq.ft. of Madras terrace hall area needs to be repaired immediately since it is in dangerous condition and all other balance Madras terrace area and the tiled roof area are in good condition and it will not endanger human habitation. 31. In view of the report received from the Structural Engineer, the following directions could be given to dispose of both the writ petitions. 1) Since the Madras terrace hall area measuring 319.50 sq.ft. is in a dangerous condition, writ petitioner is directed to repair that portion immediately and to make it safe for human habitation. 31. In view of the report received from the Structural Engineer, the following directions could be given to dispose of both the writ petitions. 1) Since the Madras terrace hall area measuring 319.50 sq.ft. is in a dangerous condition, writ petitioner is directed to repair that portion immediately and to make it safe for human habitation. 2) Since the above said work is to be done on a war footing, the Trust nor the trustees nor any one claiming under them, who is the landlord of the building shall not interfere with the repairing works to be done by the petitioner. 3) The writ petitioner is directed to follow all safety norms while repairing the portion by cordoning of that area to ensure that the construction activity would not endanger school children. 4) The repair work should be completed as expeditiously as possible. 5) It is said that license application is pending before the authorities and therefore the competent authority is directed to consider the same and pass orders at the earliest. 6) It is needless to add that the competent authority shall also consider the report given by the Structural Engineer appointed by this court. 7) The orders impugned in both the writ petitions are set aside. 32. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.