Judgment :- 1. The Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 4 and 5 to desist from granting building approval; directing the respondents 1 to 3 from granting approval to the 8th respondent to run "Oxford Nursery Primary School" at Kallavi Village, and to take steps to close the said School which is illegally functioning in the said village. 2. The Writ Petition is filed by the Correspondent of a recognized private school as defined in the Tamil Nadu recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. The approval for running the petitioner school from L.K.G. to V Standard was granted from the academic year 2005-2006 for a period of three years. According to the petitioner, one Mr.Mathiazhagan, started a Nursery and Primary School in the name "Sun Flower Primary School", adjacent to the petitioners School in violation of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. Petitioner issued notices to the respondents 2 and 3 demanding to take immediate action for the closure of the said School. The third respondent passed orders dated 13.9.2006 (served on 8.1.2007) for the closure of the said school. By the same order, the third respondent also ordered the closure of the petitioners school for violation of certain provisions of the Act. The said order of closure insofar as petitioner is under challenge in W.P.No.1583 of 2007. The petitioner school is running by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.1583 of 2007. The said writ petition is pending. 3. In the meanwhile, petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition alleging that the respondent school authorities are attempting to grant permission to the 8th respondent to start another school contrary to the provisions of the above said Act and Rules. The various grounds raised in the writ petition relate to allegation regarding violation of the Act and the Rules, if approval is granted to the school to be run by the 8th respondent. 4. Notice for admission was ordered on 23.7.2007. The third respondent Elementary Educational Officer filed a detailed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioners endeavour is to stall the starting of schools by others in and around the school run by the petitioner. 4. Notice for admission was ordered on 23.7.2007. The third respondent Elementary Educational Officer filed a detailed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioners endeavour is to stall the starting of schools by others in and around the school run by the petitioner. The third respondent denies the allegation of the petitioner that the respondents have given approval to the eighth respondent to run the school. It is averred that the claim of the eighth respondent is only in the stage of inspection and in any event, the third respondent will follow the provision of the Act and the Rules at the appropriate time while considering the case of the eighth respondent. Petitioner has no right to interfere with the proceedings of the Department at this stage. 5. Mrs.Dhakshayini Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents department submitted that the writ petition has been filed purely out of professional jealousy and rivalry between the petitioner and the eighth respondent. She relied upon the following decisions:- (i) M.Andiappan – vs. - State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Education Department, Chennai and others reported in (2006)4 MLJ 1337 wherein this Court held that the petitioner in that case running a rival school near the seventh respondents school has no locus stand to file the writ petition. (ii) Nehru Middle School, represented by its Correspondent G.Savarimuthu, Muthukulam, N.Kuttappattu village, Manikandam Union, Trichirappalli District – vs. Director of Elementary Education, Chennai-6 and others reported in (2007)6 MLJ 594 wherein this Court held that it is for the authorities to implement the guidelines issued by the State and such guidelines could not be enforced at the instance of rival school owner. 6. From the averments made in the affidavit, it is clear that the petitioners grievance is against the eighth respondent and the endeavour in this writ petition is to stall the grant of approval to a new school. The eight respondent has made an endeavour to start a school and at the stage of considering the claim of the eighth respondent, it is for the authorities to decide as to how the approval has to be granted if the eighth respondent complies with the requirements of law. Petitioner cannot preempt and restrain the respondent department from proceeding in the matter by filing the writ petition. It will amount to interfering with the duty of the school department. Petitioner cannot preempt and restrain the respondent department from proceeding in the matter by filing the writ petition. It will amount to interfering with the duty of the school department. The writ petition filed in haste, show the mala fide intention of the petitioner to scuttle the starting of school in the surrounding areas. 7. The nation is busting on its seams with population explosion, the need for food, clothing, and shelter is growing day-by-day. There is still a great short fall in the number of school considering the huge population of young school going children. Millions of youth of this country are consigned to doing menial jobs for want of good education. If the children and youth are given proper education, it will pave the way for a strong nation building and our country has to grow out of poverty and ignorance. Starting of school at remote places both by Government and private enterprise will cater to the need of the children and youth who otherwise will fall into a wayward life. The nation is suffering from millions of daily wage earners who have no fixed income. Their basic needs for food and shelter has become scarce due to inflation and vagaries of nature. It is education that alone can improve the quality of life. 8. Petitioners grievance appears to be personal in nature. It does not promote the course of education. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner has come to this Court with mala fide intention of scuttling to growth of education by others even before it is considered. It establishes his mala fide. The authorities should have been approached if and when approval is granted. The writ petition is premature. The litigation of this kind is a waste of judicial time and is frowned upon seriously. This sort of reckless filing of writ petition has to be curbed. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to impose costs in a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only). The cost to be paid by way of demand draft to the Annai Kasturibai Gandhi Boys and Girls Home, No.7, South Mada Street, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri 635001 within one month from the date of issue of this order. The said Home shall utilise the above amount for the welfare of the inmates. The cost to be paid by way of demand draft to the Annai Kasturibai Gandhi Boys and Girls Home, No.7, South Mada Street, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri 635001 within one month from the date of issue of this order. The said Home shall utilise the above amount for the welfare of the inmates. The receipt of the amount to be informed to this Court. If the cost is not paid as above, on report, the District Collector, Krishnagiri (fifth respondent), is directed to take steps as per Law for recovery of the said amount. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.