Judgment :- The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 29.01.2007 as confirmed in an appeal by the first respondent by an order dated 28.09.2007. 2. The petitioner had filed an application to the second respondent on 14.09.2005 requesting for grant of approval of an Educational Agency, which was a newly constituted Trust so that the Educational Institution could be transferred to the said Trust. This request was considered by the second respondent and rejected by an order dated 29.1.2007. The only reason for rejection of the Application is that the School is situated in Survey No.9, Pallikondapattu Village and the said land is a Government poramboke land and therefore the question of change of the Educational agency cannot be approved. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec.41 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School (Regulation) Act 1973 before the first respondent by an appeal petition dated 14.2.2007. Since this Appeal petition was kept pending, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.22074 of 2007 and this Court by an order dated 21.07.2007 directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 14.02.2007 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Thereafter by an order dated 28.09.2007, the first respondent rejected the appeal. 4. Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application for transfer of Educational Agency was rejected for the sole reason that the land on which the Institution is situated is a Government poramboke land, however, the first respondent without affording any opportunity to the petitioner has in fact framed 16 charges against the petitioner and proceeded to deal with each one of the same in question and answer manner and ultimately rejected the appeal. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is against the procedure prescribed for disposal of the appeal as contemplated under Sec.43(2) of the Act. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent on the other hand would contend that the land in question is classified as “Temple poramboke” in the “A” Register, and the local public and the President of the Panchayat have submitted a complaint as regards the school building, the infrastructure of the school and other such matters. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent on the other hand would contend that the land in question is classified as “Temple poramboke” in the “A” Register, and the local public and the President of the Panchayat have submitted a complaint as regards the school building, the infrastructure of the school and other such matters. After taking into consideration the overall scenario, such an order came to be passed by the first respondent. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only reason for rejection of petitioner’s application for transfer of Educational Agency was on the ground that the land on which the institution is situated is a Government poramboke land. However, when the Appellate Authority took up the matter, the Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal on certain other grounds which were not the basis for order passed by the original authority, that too without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. 6. In my view the procedure adopted by the 1st Respondent it is clearly contrary to the manner in which the appeal can be disposed as contemplated under Sec.43(2) of the Act. No doubt the Appellate authority while exercising his power under Sec.41 of the Act could consider issues which were not before the original authority but it should be done only after issuing proper notice to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to make a representation against such issues. Therefore, the primary responsibility lies with the first respondent to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to make a representation on the proposed grounds on which he proposes to dispose of the appeal. This, however, has not been adhered to in the instant case. Therefore, the matter has to be decided afresh by the first respondent. 7. Therefore, in stead of setting aside the order passed by the first respondent, there will be the direction to the petitioner to treat the order dated 28.09.2007 as the show-case notice and the petitioner is permitted to submit a representation / reply to the allegations contained therein, more particularly with regard to the so called deficiencies pointed by the first respondent. On receipt of such representation/reply, first respondent should afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. On receipt of such representation/reply, first respondent should afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all grounds which has been raised in the present Writ Petition against the order passed by the first respondent and the first respondent is directed to pass an order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of explanation by the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.