Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2980 (MAD)

K. K. Ashok v. Joint Director of School Education

2014-08-28

G.M.AKBAR ALI, R.SUDHAKAR

body2014
JUDGMENT R. SUDHAKAR, J. 1. The contempt petition and the writ appeal are listed today for hearing. However, when the matters were taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that the writ petition itself may be taken up for final disposal so that a quietus may be given to the multiplying litigations. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is also taken up along with the writ appeal and the contempt petition for final disposal. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 18.01.2014 calling only the members of a particular branch with regard to the Management of Kattuputtur Zamindar Higher Secondary School, Kattuputtur. The petitioner was also staking a claim that he has a right to take part in the management of the school. An interim order of stay was granted by this Court on 11.2.2014 and subsequently extended on 14.3.2014. However, subsequently, the said interim order was vacated by the impugned order dated 3.4.2014 by observing as follows:- "2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the interim order has been obtained suppressing the fact that the writ petitioner has filed a suit in O.S. No. 227 of 2001 before the District Munsif Court, Musiri, claiming right of management and the same was dismissed on 21.06.2004. 3. Since the writ petitioner has obtained interim stay, by suppressing the above fact, without going into the merits of the case, the interim stay granted on 11.02.2014 is vacated and M.P. No. 3 of 2014 is allowed. Consequently, M.P. No. 2 of 2014 is dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the third respondent/vacate stay petitioner fairly submitted that the third respondent is willing to consider the writ petitioner request for nomination to the educational agency. The said statement is recorded. 5. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the third respondent, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner also submitted that the matter may be referred to mediation for finding out the possibility of settlement. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Mediation Centre on 16.04.2014." 3. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Mediation Centre on 16.04.2014." 3. Against the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed along with an application for interim stay. It appears that consequent upon the admission of the writ appeal, this Court granted interim order. 4. In the meanwhile, it appears that the Joint Director of School Education had proceeded to hear the parties by taking up the matter for approval of the educational agency, which was objected to by the petitioner/appellant stating that there is an order of stay passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Subsequently, in view of orders passed by the Joint Director of School Education, contempt proceedings were initiated and on notice, the official respondent, viz. the 1st respondent - Joint Director of School Education appeared before this Court and filed an affidavit stating that the order passed by him on 29.5.2014 has been withdrawn and there is no order in respect of recognition of educational agency. The 1st respondent, by filing an affidavit, also tendered unconditional apology, which is extracted hereunder:- "14. I deny the allegation in paragraph 17 that I orally informed the son of the petitioner that I was aware of the order of this Honourable Court while passing the order on 29-05-2014 and I could not do anything about it. I am fully aware for the fact that I am duty bound to follow the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and I have reposed high respect upon this Hon'ble Court and I will implement the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court without any infraction. I tender my unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court. If this Hon'ble Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that I have disobeyed the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court which is neither willful nor wanton. Inspite of the due care and diligence exercised by me. Now the orders issued has been cancelled on 8.8.2014 vide proceedings R.C. No. 107055/W4/S1/2013 dated 8.8.2014 as I am duly bound to follow the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and in future I assure I obey the orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court and will implement without any delay." 5. Heard Ms. Dakshayani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, Mr. Heard Ms. Dakshayani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and Mr. Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent. 6. The writ petition has been filed for a direction on the 1st respondent to call the petitioner to resolve the issue with regard to recognition of the educational agency of the Kattuputtur Zamindar Higher Secondary School, Kattuputtur and the grievance of the petitioner therein/appellant herein appears to be that his claim for being a part of the educational agency should also be considered. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are brothers. The 2nd respondent herein, however, contends on facts, that there are various other litigations and orders adverse to the writ petitioner, which disentitles the petitioner/appellant from being part of the educational agency. His claim can, however, be considered by the authority subject to objection on merits. The 2nd respondent further states that the educational agency has to be recognised so as to enable the institution to run for the benefit of students. 7. The objection that has been raised by the 2nd respondent with regard to the petitioner/ appellant being part of the educational agency, based on records, need not be gone into at this stage as it is in the realm of facts in dispute between the siblings. 8. Be that as it may. From the writ petition, it is evident that the main grievance of the petitioner/appellant seems to be that the petitioner/appellant should also be called by the 1st respondent in order to resolve the issue with regard to recognition of the educational agency and the petitioner/appellant should also be part of the educational agency. It is also admitted by either side that the recognition of the educational agency is of paramount importance for the smooth functioning of the institution and also in the welfare of the students. 9. The plea of the writ petitioner/appellant that he has a right to stake a claim for being considered as a member of the educational agency, though disputed by the second respondent is an issue which has to be gone into by the first respondent. 9. The plea of the writ petitioner/appellant that he has a right to stake a claim for being considered as a member of the educational agency, though disputed by the second respondent is an issue which has to be gone into by the first respondent. In the course of considering the issue for grant of approval to the educational agency, the claim of the writ petitioner/appellant can be considered subject to the objections of the second respondent (brother) and the same will give a quietus to the whole problem. To this course of action, Mr. Vijay Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel has stated that the second respondent should be allowed to give all relevant materials to the first respondent/authority and object to the claim of the writ petitioner/appellant (brother). There is no impediment for allowing such a plea. 10. At this stage of writ petition and appeal, the claim of the writ petitioner/appellant on his right to be considered for being a member of the educational agency is a fact in dispute by the second respondent and, therefore, we are not inclined to embark on such an exercise. Appropriately, it will be the first respondent who can consider the claim of the rivals and we deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to dispose of this issue. 11. In the meanwhile, we notice that the writ petitioner/appellant has initiated contempt proceedings against the first respondent and notice has been ordered and the first respondent – Balamurugan, Joint Director of School Education, who has already been called upon to respond to the notice in the contempt proceedings. He has also appeared before us and filed his affidavit. He has also recalled the order passed earlier. We, therefore, feel it appropriate that the said officer should recuse himself from dealing with this matter, in view of the allegations levelled against him and the response by the Officer, which, we feel, may be a probable ground to allege bias against the officer concerned. 12. Accordingly, we direct the Director of School Education to nominate another officer of the same rank as that of the first respondent to convene a meeting with the second respondent and the writ petitioner/appellant, and decide the issue relating to recognition of the educational agency by considering the claim of the second respondent and the writ petitioner/appellant (siblings). 13. 12. Accordingly, we direct the Director of School Education to nominate another officer of the same rank as that of the first respondent to convene a meeting with the second respondent and the writ petitioner/appellant, and decide the issue relating to recognition of the educational agency by considering the claim of the second respondent and the writ petitioner/appellant (siblings). 13. While considering such an issue, the officer concerned shall take into consideration the objections that may be raised by the second respondent that the writ petitioner/ appellant is not entitled to be a part of the educational agency. Similarly, the objections of the writ petitioner/appellant may also be considered. 14. The authority shall pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner/appellant and the second respondent (siblings), so as to avoid allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. 15. The authorised officer duly nominated by the Director of School Education shall hear the parties and complete the exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. The writ appeal and writ petition are disposed of with the above observations and directions. In view of the unconditional apology tendered by the first respondent and the order of this Court having been complied with, the contempt petition is closed and the contemner is discharged. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions and sub applications are closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.