JUDGMENT : 1. The Government Schools have been subjected to negligence and the decline in the admission in to those institutions is the indicator of that. The reasons are many and this is not the occasion to analyse them. Private agencies have come forward and have established schools to cater to the needs, overcoming several odds. It is a different matter that unhealthy competition among them resulted in several unwelcome developments. Interference by politicians in the administration of government schools has slowly expanded to cover private schools also. 2. The petitioner established a High School in the year 2006 at Tanuku, by obtaining permission from the Government. Provisional recognition was being given year after year, upto 2008. Through order, dated 08-01-2008, the Regional Joint Director, Kakinada, granted recognition for a period of ten years. 3. One Geddam Chandra Rao, claiming to be the State Coordinator, APCC, Scheduled Caste Department, Hyderabad, is said to have submitted a complaint to the District Educational Officer, West Godavari District – 3rd respondent, against the petitioner alleging that some classes are being run outside the permitted premises and that classes of LKG and UKG are being run without permission. It is also stated that certain complaints are existing against the Management of the petitioner. Acting on the complaint, the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, by name, M.R. Prasanna Kumar – 2nd respondent, issued a show cause notice, dated 04-08-2011, to the petitioner directing him to explain as to why recognition granted from classes I to X be not withdrawn. The 2nd respondent indicated in the show cause notice itself that the petitioner shall close the classes run by it, unless they have recognition. The 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 11-08-2011, directing the petitioner to close the classes, which are being run by it in the unauthorized premises, immediately. 4. The petitioner submitted an application to the 3rd respondent with a request to accord permission to run certain classes in the premises bearing No.27-5-7, Vasu Plaza, Acharya Ranga Road, Tanuku. The 3rd respondent rejected the application on 03-10-2011 taking the view that there is no permission accorded by the competent authority as per G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01-01-1994 to run the classes VI to X. W.P No.28666 of 2011 is filed against the said order. 5. The 3rd respondent rejected the application on 03-10-2011 taking the view that there is no permission accorded by the competent authority as per G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01-01-1994 to run the classes VI to X. W.P No.28666 of 2011 is filed against the said order. 5. While admitting the writ petition on 31-10-2011, this Court passed an interim order directing that the 2nd respondent shall consider the application submitted by the petitioner seeking permission to run LKG and UKG classes and to run classes VI to X at the premises bearing No.27-5-7, Vasu Plaza, Acharya Ranga Road, Tanuku. Acting on the said direction, the 2nd respondent passed orders, dated 15-11-2011, instructing the 3rd respondent to take necessary action as per G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01-01-1994. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. 6. The petitioner contends that the complaint submitted by busybody gave rise to issuance of show cause notice, but, till today, no final order was passed. He contends that the only action, which the 2nd respondent could have taken on the strength of the show cause notice, is to cancel the recognition, if any lapses are noticed and there was absolutely no justification for the 3rd respondent in directing closure of the institution. He further submits that when an application is made strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1 itself to accord permission for running classes in the neighbouring premises, the order of rejection was passed without any application of mind at all. He further submits that the 2nd respondent virtually repeated the same exercise, while passing the order in compliance with the orders of this Court. 7. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit. He referred to various proceedings that were initiated in relation to the Schools of the petitioner and ultimately, submits that the request made by the petitioner cannot be acceded to. The counter affidavit is verbose, but it is hardly without any valid reasons. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education. 9. Of late, the interference with the Educational Institutions by the busybodies has become rampant. Whatever may be the intention of such persons, the authorities were supposed to examine whether such complaints deserve to be considered at all and whether the Schools, which are functioning can be obstructed as long as they have recognition. 10. 9. Of late, the interference with the Educational Institutions by the busybodies has become rampant. Whatever may be the intention of such persons, the authorities were supposed to examine whether such complaints deserve to be considered at all and whether the Schools, which are functioning can be obstructed as long as they have recognition. 10. The complainant by name, Geddam Chanrda Rao, was neither a public representative nor the parent of any child, studying in the School. It appears that he wanted to exhibit his strength, and the 2nd respondent took his allegations for granted. Without even calling for a report from anyone, he straightaway issued show cause notice to the petitioner to explain as to why the recognition be not cancelled. That only shows the submissiveness on the part of the incumbent, who held the office of the 2nd respondent. His attention was more towards to politics than to academics. 11. Having issued a show cause notice, the 2nd respondent ought to have passed a final order. Even before any steps were taken at that level, the 3rd respondent issued order, dated 11-08-2011, virtually crippling the functioning of the institution. With a view to avoid further confrontation, the petitioner submitted an application seeking permission to run LKG and UKG classes and for approval of additional accommodation in the neighbourhood. A reading of the order, dated 03-10-2011, passed by the 3rd respondent discloses as to how casual and indifferent he was, in considering the application and how attentive he was in acting upon baseless allegations. He did not even bother as to what would happen to the classes being run by the petitioner. The only ground on which the application was rejected was that the petitioner did not have the permission to run classes VI to X. There cannot be a better example to prove the total incompetence on the part of the Officer than this. It was a matter of record that the School had recognition for ten years upto 2017 to run classes upto X. Unfortunately, this is the type of officers, which the Government has and result cannot be better. The irresponsible officer has staked the career of large number of students, just to satisfy the ego of an equally irresponsible politician. 12. It was a matter of record that the School had recognition for ten years upto 2017 to run classes upto X. Unfortunately, this is the type of officers, which the Government has and result cannot be better. The irresponsible officer has staked the career of large number of students, just to satisfy the ego of an equally irresponsible politician. 12. Being under the impression that the 2nd respondent, who is the Regional Joint Director, would atleast apply his mind, and give a quietus to the issue, this Court directed him to examine the application made by the petitioner and to pass orders. However, the situation was not better and he has only competed with the 2nd respondent in exhibiting his loyalty to politicians. Out of sheer respect for the orders of this Court, he ought to have examined the application by himself. He just required the 2nd respondent to take action as per G.O.Ms.No.1. This Court is totally unhappy with the manner in which the then incumbent of the office of the RJD and DEO have acted in the matter. For them, the word of busybody became the gospel truth and they did not care to protect the interests of the institution, which was granted recognition in the year 2008. 13. The Writ Petitions are allowed and the orders challenged therein are set aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to function in the same manner, as it did before the impugned order, dated 11-08-2011, was passed. The 3rd respondent is directed to examine the application of the petitioner once again on merits, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petitions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.