Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3269 (MAD)

B. Prabhakaran Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-09-12

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thambi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mrs.J.Anandhavalli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the fourth respondent not to sell P.P.M.Higher Secondary School, situated at Anducode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, without the necessary permission from the respondents 1 and 3, as per Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Aided Institution [Prohibition of Transfer of Property] Act, 1948, [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the present Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the Old Student Association of P.P.M.Higher Secondary School, Kuzrissivilai Puthen Veedu, Puthen Veedu, Anducode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, [hereinafter referred to as "the school"], as a Public Interest Litigation. 4. The learned counsel had submitted that the school, which had been started as a Middle School, was upgraded as a High School, in the year, 1960, and subsequently, it was upgraded as a Higher Secondary School, in the year, 1978. The school is an aided school, and therefore, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, would apply to the said school, as it is functioning with the financial assistance from the State Government. 5. The learned counsel had further submitted that the school, which is situated in Anducode Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District, caters to the children of more than 4,000 families, residing in the area concerned. While so, it has been learnt that the School Committee had executed a sale agreement with one R.Sasikumar, Son of Raghavan Nair and the sale price had been fixed at Rs.3 Crores and 50 lakhs. The Correspondent of the school has no right to sell the school or its building, without the prior permission from the State Government, as per the provisions of the Act. As such, the Correspondent of the school, the fourth respondent herein, had acted in violations of the Act and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. In such circumstances, the petitioner has sent a representation, dated 30.06.2014, to the respondents 2 and 3. As such, the Correspondent of the school, the fourth respondent herein, had acted in violations of the Act and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. In such circumstances, the petitioner has sent a representation, dated 30.06.2014, to the respondents 2 and 3. However, no action had been taken, based on the said representation sent by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. A counter affidavit, dated 10.08.2014, had been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, denying the claims made by the petitioner. Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the counter affidavit read as follows:- "6. It is relevant to note that the properties where the fourth respondent school is functioning is our family property and because of certain contingencies, it was decided to transfer the property to Mr.Sajikumar and he will run the fourth respondent school. Only the ownership in respect of the properties where the school is running is getting transferred. Pursuant to the same, there will be a change in management of the school. The school, as such, is going to function and after transfer, as contemplated under Rule 7 of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools [Regulation] Rules, 1974, approval will be obtained from the concerned authorities. The Writ Petition has been filed on the wrong apprehension, that the school gets closed after the transfer. 7. The functioning of the school will be continued by the transferee, and there will be only change of management. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner is a misconceived one. Further, the averment in para 8 and 9 are not correct. The immovable properties do not belong to the school and it belongs to our family. Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Aided Institution [Prohibition of Transfer of Property] Act, 1998, prohibits transfer without prior permission only in respect of properties belong to the institution with the aid of any grant made from the Government or any land transferred by the Government for the purpose of the institution. Only in such cases, prior premium from the Government is required and the said provision is not applicable to the present case. There is no prohibition insofar as transfer of properties belongs to the individual owner is concerned." 7. Mrs. Only in such cases, prior premium from the Government is required and the said provision is not applicable to the present case. There is no prohibition insofar as transfer of properties belongs to the individual owner is concerned." 7. Mrs. J. Anandhavalli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent had submitted that there is no grant-in-aid, by the State Government, for the building of the school. She had further submitted that the transferee would continue to run the school and there would be only a change in the management of the school. She had further pointed out that Section 3(1) of the Act would not apply to the private properties, which are being transferred to third parties, as in the present case. Further, the land, in which the school is situated, is a private property, and the building had been constructed, without any grant-in-aid from the revenues of the Government. 8. Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 had placed before this Court a communication, dated 19.08.2014, issued by the District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai, stating that there is no grant-in-aid from the Government for the school building. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out a case for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by him, in the present Writ Petition. It is noted that the land, in which the P.P.M.Higher Secondary School is situated, is a private property, as claimed by the fourth respondent. Further, there has been no grant-in-aid from the State Government for the construction of the school building. It has been made clear, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, that the private property, in which the school is situated, is being transferred, and consequently, the management of the school would also undergo a change. 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that it would not be open to the petitioner to seek a Writ of Mandamus, directing the fourth respondent not to transfer the property of the school building and its management, by filing a Public Interest Litigation. As such, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that it would not be open to the petitioner to seek a Writ of Mandamus, directing the fourth respondent not to transfer the property of the school building and its management, by filing a Public Interest Litigation. As such, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.