Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the third respondent dated 18.01.2006 and 11.06.2007 by which the third respondent has approved the constitution and re-constitution of the School Committee in respect of Kumaran Aided Middle School, Manjakollai, Nagapattinam. 3. The petitioner association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act in the name of Manjakollai Grama Nala Sangam. According to the petitioner society one R.Sambandamoorthi Mudaliar was its secretary apart from many other office bearers. According to the petitioner, it is the officer bearers of the petitioner Society, who have started the Kumaran Middle School as well as Kumaran High School and in fact in was inaugurated by the then Chief Minister in which the members of the petitioner association have taken a vital role. It is also stated that all the members of the petitioner Society have also approached the Deputy Commissioner of H.R.&C.E. Department for the purpose of framing a scheme of Administration for administration of a temple by filing an application under Section 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act 1959 and an order was passed on 31st May 1973. 4. It is the also case of the petitioner Society that the said temple called Sri Kumarar Temple was owning a large extent of property and an application was filed by the trustees of the said Kumarar Temple in Application No.41 of 1962 before the Commissioner of H.R.&C.E. Department under Section 34 of the H.R.&C.E. Act for sale of a part of land belonging to the temple and ultimately by an order dated 18.07.1962, the Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. Department has granted sanction to the temple to sell the Ayan lands and Inam lands measuring 2.61 acres in favour of Sri.R.Sambandamoorthi Mudaliar, Secretary and Correspondent of Kumaran High School, Manjakollai. It was thereafter according to the petitioner Society even though the purchase was in the name of the said R.Sanbandamoorthi Mudaliar, who was at that time holding the post of Secretary of the Society, the contribution and starting of the schools was by the efforts of the petitioner Society and therefore, the petitioner society should be treated as Educational Agency for the purpose of running the above said schools. After the death of R.Sambandamoorthi Mudaliar, the school was maintained by his wife Mrs.Visalakshi for nearly five years and after her demise, the children of the said R.Sambadamoorthi Mudaliar and Mrs.Visalakshi have taken control of the school ignoring the fact that the petitioner society is actually the Educational Agency. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner Society that the petitioner Society has made an objection to the Director of School Education about the running of the school and pointing out various material irregularities committed by the said successors of R.Sambandamoorthi Mudaliar and after considering the same, the Director of School Education by an order dated 212. 2006 has directed payment of salary directly to the teachers and non-teaching staff, thereby virtually suspending the powers of the legal heirs of R.Sambandamoorthi Mudaliar, who are administering and claiming themselves to be the Educational Agency of the said schools. 6. The third respondent, who is the authority contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act has passed the impugned orders by recognising the legal heirs of R.Sambandamoorthi as the members of the School Committee of the said schools being the representatives of the Educational Agency. It is these orders of the third respondent, which are challenged by the petitioner Society on various grounds including that the third respondent ought not to have passed this order when the Director of School Education himself having considered the complaint given by the petitioner Society that there was a dispute among the Educational Agency ordered direct payment to the teachers and non-teaching staff. It was the petitioner Society, which was instrumental in forming the School even in the year 1962, since at that time, the Secretary R.Sambandamoorthi Mudaliar was not having funds on his own and the fund and efforts were also contributed only by the petitioner Society and therefore in all practical purpose, the petitioner Society should be treated as an Educational Agency and that the third respondent should have conducted proper enquiry before approving the School Committee, which is stated to have been constituted by the legal heirs of R.Sambandamoorthi Mudaliar, namely, the fourth and fifth respondents. 7. 7. On a perusal of the entire record, it is seen that originally the property belonged to a temple, namely, Sri Kumarar Temple and on the application of the trustees of Sri Kumarar Temple, an order was passed by the Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. Department, on 17. 1962 permitting the temple to sell the Inam lands and Ayan lands to an extent of 2.61 acres in favour of Sri.R.Sambandamoorthi Mudaliar, Secretary and Correspondent of Kumaran High School, Manjakollai, Nagapattinam for a consideration of Rs.57560. 8. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner Society, which claims to have interest over the said property has not chosen to produce any record to show that in fact the sale consideration fixed by the H.R.&C.E. Department has been paid by the petitioner Society. It is relevant to note that it was only after 10 years after the orders passed by the Commissioner stated above, in the year 1972, the members of the petitioner Society including R.Sambandamoorthi Mudaliar have moved the Deputy Commissioner of H.R.&C.E. Department by filing an application under Section 64(1) of the H.R.&C.E. Act for the purpose of framing a scheme regarding the administration of the temple called Sri Kumarar Temple and in fact an order has been passed to that effect also on 35. 1973. Merely because the temple property was already sold 10 years before the order of the Commissioner in favour of the School, cannot be a ground to infer that the petitioners in the said application before the Deputy Commissioner should be deemed as Educational Agency. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the attention of this Court about the recommendation of the District Educational Officer by stating that for the better maintenance of the School, it is proper to take the members of the petitioner institution in the committee. 10. It is not in dispute that the schools in question are governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act (herein after referred to as The Act). Section 2(3) of the Act contemplates the crucial word, namely, "Educational Agency", which reads as follows: "2. 10. It is not in dispute that the schools in question are governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act (herein after referred to as The Act). Section 2(3) of the Act contemplates the crucial word, namely, "Educational Agency", which reads as follows: "2. (3) "educational agency" in relation to - .(a) any minority school, means any person who, or body of persons which, has established and is administering or proposes to establish and administer such minority school; and .(b) any other private school, means any person or body of persons permitted or deemed to be permitted under this Act to establish and maintain such other private school;" 11. Therefore, since the said Kumaran School is not a minority school, the Educational Agency in respect of said school should be body of persons or person permitted or deemed to be permitted to establish and maintain the private school. By applying the definition of Educational Agency, by no stretch of imagination, it could be accepted that the petitioner Society is a person, who is either permitted to establish or maintain the said schools in question. The day-to-day affairs of the schools are carried out by the Committee constituted under the Act, namely, the School Committee. 12. The term School Committee is defined under Section 2(8) of the Act, which reads as follows: 2(8)"school committee" in relation to a private school, means the school committee constituted under section 15;" 13. Section 15 of the Act contemplates the constitution of School Committee in respect of every private school, which shall include the headmaster of the private school and the senior most teachers employed in the private school as provided in sub-section (2). Section 15 of the Act reads as follows: "15. Section 15 of the Act contemplates the constitution of School Committee in respect of every private school, which shall include the headmaster of the private school and the senior most teachers employed in the private school as provided in sub-section (2). Section 15 of the Act reads as follows: "15. Constitution of school committee – (1) Every private school shall have a duly constituted school committee which shall include the headmaster of the private school and the senior-most teachers employed in the private school as provided in sub-section (2): Provided that where an educational agency is a company or corporation owned or controlled by the Central or State Government and such educational agency has established and administering or maintaining more than one private school, such private schools may, with the prior permission of the competent authority, have a common school committee consisting of all headmasters of such private schools and such number of senior-most teachers employed in such private schools as provided in subsection (2). (2) The number of representatives of the teachers on such constituted school committee shall be such as may be prescribed and different number of representatives may be prescribed for different classes of private schools." 14. Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Regulation Rules speaks about the constitution of the School Committee. It is relevant to extract Rule 12(3) for the purpose of understanding the facts and circumstances of the case. "12(3) The school committee shall consist of not more than the following number of members:- 15. Therefore a reading of the above sub rule makes it clear that in addition to the Headmaster, senior most teachers, nominee of the parent teacher association, senior most non-teaching staff, there are six representatives representing the educational agency in the constitution of School Committee. Therefore, the petitioners claim that they are the members of the School Committee in respect of the said school can be accepted only when they form part of the Educational Agency and the Educational Agency has nominated them to represent in the School Committee. On record it is clear that the petitioner society at no point of time proved to be the Educational Agency at all. On record it is clear that the petitioner society at no point of time proved to be the Educational Agency at all. The only claim made by the petitioner Society is that it is the petitioner Society, which was instrumental in starting the school by various efforts including the finance and other activities and Sambandamoorthi Mudaliars name was used since he happened to be the Secretary and Correspondent of the School. 16. On the other hand, ever since 1962 when permission was granted by the Commissioner, till date of dispute, which was raised only recently, it is admitted that it is R.Sambandamoorthi Mudaliar as well as his wife and his children, namely respondents 4 and 5, who have been maintaining the property and the schools. Therefore, on the face of it, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the third respondent. 17. In the light of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that in the event of the petitioner claiming to have any interest or right over the school by claiming themselves to be the Educational Agency under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration to that effect and thereafter approach the competent authority under the Act for recognising themselves as Educational Agency. If such a civil remedy is resorted to by the petitioner, it is open to the Civil Court to take all the material facts into consideration while deciding the issue. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 are also dismissed.