JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order rejecting their request for upgradation of an existing high school into higher secondary school. 2. Heard Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was originally established as a primary school way back in the year 1971 for catering to the Muslim community in and around Dindigul. It was upgraded as a Middle School in the year 1977. The petitioner is a religious minority institution. The school was upgraded as high school in the year 1987-88. However, recognition was granted to the high school only in 1999-2000 by an order dated 31.1.2001. 4. Since the school is in Pillaiyarnatham, Dindigul District, which is surrounded by four panchayats having a population of around 30,000 people, the petitioner wanted to upgrade the school into a higher secondary school and applied for upgradation way back in May 2005. Since upgradation was not granted for one reason or the other, there was a state of correspondence and also a series of litigation. The details of litigation may not be necessary for the purpose of deciding the case on hand. Therefore, I am not adverting to the history of the previous litigation. 5. Suffice it to say that by the order impugned in the writ petition, the request of the petitioner for upgradation has been rejected citing four reasons. The reasons are as follows: (i) The petitioner is in possession of land of an extent of about 2 acres and 60½ cents. The prescribed extent of land for higher secondary school is 3 acres, considering the area in which the petitioner’s school is located. This shortfall of about 39½ cents is sought to be compensated by the petitioner by entering into an agreement for taking on lease an extent of about 4 acres and 33 cents. But, the deed of lease is not a registered one for a period of 30 years and hence, the same cannot be taken into account; (ii) The petitioner ought to have had eight classrooms for Classes VI to X. But, the petitioner has only six classrooms for Classes VI to X; one classroom for Arabic Section and two classrooms for higher secondary. Therefore, there is a shortfall of two classrooms; (iii) There are other higher secondary schools in the locality and hence, the students have ample opportunities to go to other schools; and (iv) The building licence and building stability certificate indicates that the buildings are sufficient to accommodate only 140 students, but there are already 230 students. Therefore, the school cannot be upgraded. 6. In so far as the first reason stated above is concerned, it is seen that the lease deed, in respect of land of the extent of 4 acres and 33 cents is not of recent origin. It is a lease deed, which was entered into in the year 1999 itself. The petitioner is in occupation of the leasehold land now for more than 13 years. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner owns at least 2 acres and 60½ cents. The purpose of requiring registration of the lease deed for a period of 30 years is to ensure two things, namely (i) that there is no creation of a bogus document; and (ii) that the occupation of the land is not interfered with by the lessor before the expiry of the period. 7. If this purpose is taken into account, then there is no necessity for insisting upon a registered lease deed, especially when the lease is in force for more than ten years and on the basis of the very same lease, the upgradation as high school has already been given. Therefore, the first reason need not be insisted upon by the respondents. 8. The second reason is with respect to the classrooms. It is admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has a total of 8 classrooms as against the requirement of 8 classrooms for Classes VI to X, one classroom for Arabic and two classrooms for higher secondary. But, according to the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, they have six classrooms for Classes VI to X, one classroom for Arabic and two classrooms for higher secondary. 9. In other words, the claim of the petitioner is that they have 9 classrooms. According to the respondents, the requirement is 11 classrooms. But, according to the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, they have six classrooms for Classes VI to X, one classroom for Arabic and two classrooms for higher secondary. 9. In other words, the claim of the petitioner is that they have 9 classrooms. According to the respondents, the requirement is 11 classrooms. But in the reply, the petitioner has stated that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs has been allotted to the petitioner by a Member of Parliament from out of his constituency fund and the petitioner would certainly construct additional classrooms. Therefore, the second reason can also be taken case of. 10. The third reason, namely that there are schools in the neighouring villages need not necessarily be an impediment for the upgradation of an existing school. The fact that there are other schools, may be a factor that could be taken into account for denying permission to start a new school. Such an objection need not be taken against a school, which is in existence for more than 40 years. Admittedly, the petitioner is a coeducational institution. Since it is a minority Muslim institution, the upgradation of the petitioner school may be an incentive for girl students to pursue higher secondary education. Otherwise, there may be a tendency to drop out of the school after completion of the tenth standard. Therefore, at least in order to encourage the girl students belonging to Muslim Community to pursue the higher secondary course, the respondents should not press their objection that they have now taken. 11. In so far as the fourth objection is concerned, there seems to be a mistake of fact. According to the building licence certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the existing building can accommodate around 440 students. This figure has probably been construed as 140 students. When, even according to the counter filed by the respondents, there are at least 8 classrooms, it is impossible to construe that the petitioner can accommodate only 140 students. This factual dispute has to be looked into by the respondents with reference to the ground reality and proper records. In view of all the above, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with certain directions. 12. This factual dispute has to be looked into by the respondents with reference to the ground reality and proper records. In view of all the above, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with certain directions. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of on the following lines: “(i) The petitioner is directed to take immediate steps for the construction of two additional classrooms; (ii) The fifth respondent is directed to make an inspection within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to ascertain (1) the number of students for whom space is available and (2) whether steps have been effectively to put up additional classrooms on a war footing and the fifth respondent shall submit a report within a further period of two weeks after his inspection; (iii) Based upon the inspection report of the fifth respondent, the second respondent shall pass orders within a further period of two weeks, so that the petitioner does not lose the current academic year; (iv) The unregistered lease deed submitted by the petitioner can be accepted by the respondents, in view of the fact that the petitioner already owns land of an extent of 2 acres and 60½ cents and also in view of the fact that the same unregistered lease deed is in existence for more than 13 years and had been accepted earlier.” No costs. Consequently, the above MP is closed.