Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2917 (MAD)

N. Kailasam v. District Collector

2014-08-27

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 23.08.2012, made in W.P.(MD).No.2033 of 2012. The petitioner in the Writ Petition, in W.P. (MD) No.2033 of 2012, is the appellant herein. 3. The appellant had filed the Writ Petition praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash G.O.Ms.No.14,School Education (E1) Department, dated 09.02.2005, and to direct the respondents therein to name the school as 'A.K. Ayanan Chettiar Memorial Government Girls High School, Manachanallur'. The learned Single Judge, by his order, dated 23.08.2012, had dismissed the writ petition stating that there is no right vested with the petitioner to demand that the school should be named, as prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petitioner, the appellant herein. The learned Judge had taken note of Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.14, School Education (E1) Department, dated 09.02.2005, wherein it had been stated that, the naming of the school in the name of a private person may portray that the school is a private school and therefore, the State Government had decided that the name of the donor, who had donated the land to the construction of the school, can be inscribed only in a plaque. 4. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 23.08.2012. The appellant has not been in a position to show that the G.O.Ms.No.14, School Education (E1) Department, dated 09.02.2005, is bad in the eye of law. Therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the appellant to make a representation with regard to the placing of a plaque inscribing the name of the donor, as provided in G.O.Ms.No.14, School Education (E1) Department, dated 09.02.2005. If such a representation is made by the appellant, the same may be considered and appropriate orders may be passed, by the authority concerned. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed, with the above observation. No costs.