Judgment : The petitioner is landlady of the 2nd respondent who is stated to be running a Play School under the name and style of “Teeny Boppers” in the tenanted premisis at Visakhapatnam. It is alleged that even after the expiry of the lease period on 24.12.2005, the petitioner is continuing to occupy the premisis and is running Play School without obtaining necessary permission from the Education Department. When the petitioner addressed a letter to the District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam under Right to Information Act, Deputy Inspector of Schools, Urban Range, Visakhapatnam informed the District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam by letter, dated 14.02.2012 to the effect that “Teeny Boppers” is being run as Play School and that opening permission has not been granted as per A.P.Educational Act by the District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam. Therefore, the Deputy Inspector of Schools requested the District Educational Officer for further action in this matter. In those circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition seeking mandamus declaring action of the 1st respondent – District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam in not taking any action on the representation made by the petitioner on 24.02.2012 by initiating action as contemplated under Section 20(4) of the A.P.Educational Act (in short, the Act) against the 2nd respondent as illegal etc. and for consequential direction to the 1st respondent to take appropriate action against the 2nd respondent under Section 20(4) of the Act. 2. Primary question to be decided in this writ petition is whether a Play School requires permission from the Educational Authorities under Section 20 of the Act. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that a Pre-Primary School is also expected to take necessary permission for its establishment under the Act and also under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 (in short, the Rules). Rule 1(2)(a) of the Rules describe ‘Pre-Primary Schools’ as follows: “Pre-Primary Schools:-These schools are classified as Nursery, Kindergarten, Montessory and the like. They shall admit children who are in the age of 3 to 5 years” 3. Rule 1(2)(a) of the Rules describe ‘Pre-Primary Schools’ as follows: “Pre-Primary Schools:-These schools are classified as Nursery, Kindergarten, Montessory and the like. They shall admit children who are in the age of 3 to 5 years” 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that as per definition of a Pre-Primary school, Nursery as well as Kindergarten schools also require obtaining of prior permission from the Department for establishing those schools and that the definition further includes the phrase ‘and the like’ and that therefore under whatever name a school is run, prior permission of the authorities under the Act is compulsory. 4. Both the Act as well as the Rules deal with Educational Institutions. Simply because one establishment is described as a play school, it does not become a school in which education is imparted and which requires permission under the Act and Rules. In this case, the so-called Play School of the 2nd respondent is not even named as a play school and it is styled as “Teeny Boppers”. Unless any education is being imparted in such a place, it cannot be termed as a school at all. Though meaning of Pre-Primary Schools contained in Rule 1(2)(a) of the Rules include Nursery School, the so-called play school is a pre-nursery school. It is only a place where kids are sent for playing and to accustom themselves to be away from their home and their mothers. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that children of the age of 3 to 5 years are being admitted in the so-called play school of the 2nd respondent. Irrespective of age of the children, since no education as such is imparted in a play school, it does not come within the meaning of a Pre-Primary school under Rule 1(2)(a) of the Rules. At best, a Play-School can be termed as Pre-Nursery ie. pre-Pre-Primary School which is outside the purview of the Act and the Rules. 5. Since the 2nd respondent did not vacate the tenanted premisis and continued to occupy the premisis even after expiry of lease period, it is evident that the petitioner intended to create spokes for the activity of the tenant in the tenanted premisis. This writ petition is one in that direction. I do not find any merits as well as bona fides in this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.