Judgment : 1. With the consent of both parties, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.9924 of 2014 is one Mrs.R.S.Usha Rani, wife of Mr.P.Elampooranan and she has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate statutory and penal action against the respondents 5 and 6, by taking into consideration her representation, dated 16.06.2014 to ensure the continuity of the study of her minor children namely P.Ganesh and P.E.Chomeshvar, petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.17017 of 2013, in the respondents 5 and 6 school and also to provide adequate compensation for their loss of studies during 2013-2014. 3. The petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.17017 of 2013, who are the minor children of the petitioner Mrs.R.S.Usha Rani, in W.P.(MD) No.9924 of 2014, represented by their mother and natural guardian, sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action against the third respondent to save and secure their right to education by admitting them into the school and continue their studies by considering the representation of the petitioners' mother, dated 11.09.2013. Thus, essentially the prayer sought for in both the writ petitions are one and the same and the only difference being the petitioner in one writ petition is the mother and the petitioners in the other writ petition are minor children, represented by their mother. 4. The minor children were studying in the respondents 5 and 6 School in 6th and 2nd standards respectively. From the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.9924 of 2014 it appears that the petitioner had made certain complaints against the management of the school alleging that excess fee is being charged and complaints were given to the authorities and the Inspector of Matriculation Schools summoned both the petitioner as well as the Principal and the Secretary of the school and conducted enquiry and such other matters. 5. According to the petitioner the management of the school angered by the action of the petitioner made her children stay out of the school campus and prevented them from attending classes. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer for taking appropriate legal action, who passed an order, dated 19.09.2013 directing the management of the school to admit the children to enable them to pursue their studies. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer for taking appropriate legal action, who passed an order, dated 19.09.2013 directing the management of the school to admit the children to enable them to pursue their studies. In spite of the said communication, the management did not comply with the said order and therefore the children represented by their mother filed W.P.(MD) No.17017 of 2013. It is further submitted that on account of the action of the respondent management, the education of the minor children has been jeopardized and for the past two years they were unable to go to school. Therefore, the petitioner would contend that her children have been kept away from the school because she questioned the action of the management in certain matters. 6. The other averment is that a false case was registered against the petitioner and her husband on the file of the Aruppukkottai Town Police Station in Crime No.396 of 2013 solely because the petitioner fought against the management for charging excess fee. The other allegation is that the Principal of the school is acting against the interest of the petitioner and family members since there is a civil dispute between her family and the Trust, which running the school and the action in throwing out the petitioner's children from the school is an act of vengeance against the petitioner. With these facts, the petitioner seeks for afore-mentioned relief. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit and referred to the various documents filed in the typed set of papers and submitted that despite several orders passed by the Department, the respondent management maintained an adamant attitude in preventing the petitioner's children from attending classes. Therefore, it is submitted that direction should be issued to the management to admit the children and the Department should take stringent action against the management. By referring to Right to Education Act, it is submitted that the management cannot refuse to permit the petitioner's children to continue their studies. 8. The Inspector of Matriculation Schools has filed a counter affidavit, from which it is seen that the the petitioner had given a complaint to the Department alleging that the management of the school in charging exorbitant fee and the Department informed the petitioner that if she produces proof, action will be initiated. 8. The Inspector of Matriculation Schools has filed a counter affidavit, from which it is seen that the the petitioner had given a complaint to the Department alleging that the management of the school in charging exorbitant fee and the Department informed the petitioner that if she produces proof, action will be initiated. It is submitted that the petitioner sent the school fee for her children by money order and the same was refused by the management and when the petitioner went to school on 19.07.2013 there was some altercation between the petitioner and the Correspondent and Principal of the school and a case was registered in Crime No.396 of 2013 against the petitioner and her husband. 9. It is further submitted that on 20.08.2013 the petitioner and her sons went to the school to stage Dharna before the school for the reason that her children were not allowed to enter into the school and on coming to know about the matter, the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar and the officials of the Inspector of Matriculation Schools went to the school and advised the management to resolve the matter amicably for the welfare of the children. 10. Further, it is submitted that an enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Matriculation Schools on 20.08.2013 and the school management insisted that they cannot readmit the children to the school. The Inspector of Matriculation Schools would state that she condemned the attitude of the management and reminded them their duties under the provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009 and sent a report to the Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai, on 21.08.2013, regarding the attitude of the management. In addition to the above, by proceedings dated 22.08.2013, once again the Inspector of Matriculation Schools directed the management of the school to take immediate steps to take back the children, for which the management sent a reply, on 31.08.2013, reiterating the earlier stand. Therefore, it is stated that the management is adamant and it is a pity that the petitioner as well as the management in order to settle their personal scores do not mind the future of the children. It is further submitted that as there is a stalemate, the Department is ready to abide by any positive direction issued by this Court regarding the said issue. 11. It is further submitted that as there is a stalemate, the Department is ready to abide by any positive direction issued by this Court regarding the said issue. 11. The learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the Department will abide by any positive direction, which will be issued by this Court. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent management has filed two counter affidavits one by the Principal of the school and the other by the Secretary of the same school. It is submitted that the Trust is running many schools and colleges and more than 11,935 students are studying in the institution and even a single complaint from the students nor the parents was received and the society is imparting education to the students with philanthropic mind. Whileso, the teachers and the staff of the institution are mentally harassed by the petitioner to settle her personal scores with the Trust. Further, it is submitted that the institution is an unaided institution run by the funds of the Trust. 13. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner was working in the commerce department of the college run by the Trust for some time and was removed from service and a writ petition was filed before this Court challenging the order of removal and the same is pending. Further, the petitioner filed a suit against the Trust stating that the entire property of the Trust belongs to her and the same was taken away by the Trust from her fore-fathers and therefore she is creating problem one way or other by filing cases. It is further submitted that apart from the petitioner filing cases, now she is using her children for creating problem in the school and her sole intention is to defame the institution run by the Trust. Further, it is submitted that there are several schools in the Aruppukkottai Town and the purpose of the petitioner to insist upon to take back her children is only with the intention to defame the respondent institution. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner is in habit of making false complaints against staff members and others and she abused staff members and committed serious illegalities and a criminal complaint is pending in this regard. 14. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner is in habit of making false complaints against staff members and others and she abused staff members and committed serious illegalities and a criminal complaint is pending in this regard. 14. Further, the learned counsel referred to the reply sent by the Secretary of the school to the Director of Matriculation Schools, dated 01.10.2013 and submitted that a report has been given to the Director furnishing all details highlighting the various illegalities committed by the petitioner. In this regard reference was also made to the various resolutions passed in the school committee meetings as well as in the trust meetings and submitted that till date the Director of Matriculation Schools has not taken any action on the said reply and the same is pending. Further, it is submitted that in terms of Section 10 of the Right to Education Act, there is a duty on the petitioner, who is the parent, to impart education to her children and she has failed in the statutory duty cast upon her. 15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 16. It is an unfortunate case, where the parents of the two minor children and the management of the respondent institution are at loggerheads on certain personal and property issues and the children have been used and targeted in the civil battle between the parties. It is not in dispute that the management of the respondent Institution are running several educational institution in the District. In their counter affidavit, it is stated that they are running six schools and one college and the total number of students studying in their institution is 11935. Therefore, the management seeks to impress upon this Court that they have got nothing against the children and all their institutions are functioning without any complaints and the complaint made by the petitioner is only to harass the management. This is sought to be substantiated by contending that the petitioner has challenged her removal from the post of lecturer in the commerce department of the respondent management college by filing a writ petition before this Court apart from filing a suit as against the Trust claiming that the properties of the Trust belongs to her forefathers. This is sought to be substantiated by contending that the petitioner has challenged her removal from the post of lecturer in the commerce department of the respondent management college by filing a writ petition before this Court apart from filing a suit as against the Trust claiming that the properties of the Trust belongs to her forefathers. Despite these issues, it is to be noted that the respondent management claims to be a part of a well established philanthropic organization said to have been founded several years back and educational institutions have been established in and around Aruppukkottai for the elfare of the entire people of the area. 17. However, on a reading of the counter affidavit filed by the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, this Court is inclined to have a slightly different opinion about the manner in which the management has acted. The averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the Inspector of Matriculation Schools have not been denied by the management. From which it appears that the conduct of the management is contrary to the image sought to be created by them as a large philanthropic body running several institution with nearly 12000 students under their umbrella. If the management is such a large philanthropic institution, the alleged issues raised by the petitioner could hardly affect them. The petitioner appears to be aggrieved by her removal from service, which has to be agitated by her in the manner known to law and if according to the management/society, the suit filed by the petitioner is frivolous, it is always open to them to defend themselves in the suit in the manner known to law. Therefore, this can hardly have any bearing on the right of the minor children to continue their education in the respondent school. 18. The petitioner has been projected as a person, who is a troublesome interloper creating panic situation in the institution to the teachers and staff, habitually abuses them creating tense situation, which the management refuses to tolerate. If the petitioner is guilty of creating tense situation threatening the staff and teachers of the institution, her conduct cannot be appreciated. No person can meet out threat to another person as the same is illegal and liable to be punished if proved. If the petitioner is guilty of creating tense situation threatening the staff and teachers of the institution, her conduct cannot be appreciated. No person can meet out threat to another person as the same is illegal and liable to be punished if proved. Any grievance against the management or teachers has to be expressed by the petitioner in the manner known to law not by making threat by showing money or muscle power. Therefore, if such of those allegations are true, then the conduct of the petitioner is not appreciable. However, no conclusive finding in this regard is made by this Court, as matters are pending at different levels and before different forums and law will have to take in course. 19. The petitioner on the other hand would submit that she and her husband have been victimized and false criminal complaint has been registered against them. In any event, since the criminal case is under investigation, this Court does not propose to deal with the said issue any further. The only question now to be decided is as to whether the minor children could be kept away from the school on the grounds alleged by the respondents. Admittedly, the respondent management has not issued transfer certificate rather in the course of hearing the respondent management took a stand that they are ready to issue transfer certificate and also meet the educational expenses of the children provided that the children are taken to a different school. The statement made by the respondent management is taking note of the counter affidavit filed by the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, by which it appears that the conduct of the management is not in furtherance of the objects of the Right to Education Act. However, this is only a prima facie view in the light of the categorical stand taken by the Department in the counter affidavit. 20. The test applied by this Court is as to whether the children, who are not delinquents and who have not committed any misconduct, could they be kept away from the school in the manner done by the respondent management. The only answer to such question could be in the negative as the children cannot be kept away from the school. The test applied by this Court is as to whether the children, who are not delinquents and who have not committed any misconduct, could they be kept away from the school in the manner done by the respondent management. The only answer to such question could be in the negative as the children cannot be kept away from the school. The Inspector of Matriculation Schools has expressed her anguish not only about the conduct of the management, but the parents of the children as well as it is rather unfortunate that the mother of the children has virtually used her children to settle the disputes between her and the management. In any event, the interest of the minor children is paramount and idiosyncrasies of the parents or any other person cannot be a detrimental factor or in the way of interfer with the right of education of the minor children, which is a fundamental right. Therefore, the management is bound to comply with the direction issued by the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, dated 22.08.2013, which is to the following effect: “TAMIL” 21. In the light of the above discussion, the respondent management shall admit the petitioner's children namely E.Ganesh and P.E.Chomeshvar in 6th and 2nd Standard respectively in their institution, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After admitting the children, it is open to the management to pursue their representation given to the Director of Matriculation Schools, dated 01.10.2013, which shall be considered in accordance with law. Direction is issued to admit the children in standards 6th and 2nd respectively since the children have not been attending school since July, 2013. The allegations made by the petitioner and the respondent management against each other has not been adjudicated and is left open to be agitated before the appropriate forum. 22. In the result, both the writ petitions are disposed as directed above. Consequently, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.