Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1359 (TS)

Sri Chaitanya School v. State Of Telangana

2025-10-30

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under: “…to pass an order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.4 in seizing the Petitioner Institution in between the academic year 2025-2026, wherein more than 1400 students presently studying along with faculty/teachers are put to hardship arraying between class Nursery to class X without issuing any Notice for seizure and without following due process of law is highly arbitrary, against to the principals of natural justice illegal, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently DIRECT the Respondents to forthwith unseal and hand over the Institution premises to the Petitioner Institution for continuation of academic activities and pass...” 3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as under: i) The Petitioner Institution, Sri Chaitanya School, is a duly established and recognized educational institution functioning from Nursery to Class X with a total strength of 1,482 students and requisite teaching staff. The institution holds valid provisional recognition granted by the Respondent No.3 for Classes PP to VII vide proceedings dated 14.11.2022 and renewal recognition granted by respondent No.2 for Classes VIII to X vide proceedings dated 13.07.2023, both valid up to the academic year 2032–2033. ii) However, the Respondent No.3 issued proceedings vide Proc. No.1176/B4/2025 dated 17.09.2025 directing Respondent No.4 to seize the Petitioner institution on the ground that it is located near a petrol bunk, and hence, contrary to rules. The Petitioner submitted a reply on 17.10.2025 requesting time till the end of the academic year 2025–2026 to shift the premises of the petitioner Institution. iii) Despite this, on 27.10.2025, Respondent No.4, without any prior notice, forcibly sealed the petitioner institution. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD (A) The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.3-the District Education Officer, Ranga Reddy District vide proc. iii) Despite this, on 27.10.2025, Respondent No.4, without any prior notice, forcibly sealed the petitioner institution. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD (A) The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.3-the District Education Officer, Ranga Reddy District vide proc. Rc.No.1176/ B4/ 2025 dated 17.09.2025 addressed to the respondent No.4-the Mandal Educational Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, is extracted hereunder “It has come to the notice of the undersigned vide reference cited, that the management of Sri Chaitanya School, Opposite to Bharath Function Hall, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is functioning the school nearby petrol bunk which is against rules. Therefore, the Mandal Educational Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal is hereby instructed to seize the school immediately from the management and submit compliance report to the undersigned .” B. Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institution Rules, 1993 is extracted hereunder: “22) that the institutions are permitted to be established (or upgraded) to meet the educational needs of the respective localities, shifting of the institutions from one locality to another will not be permitted under ordinary circumstances, as a matter of routine. However, shifting of the institution from one building to another within the same locality or within the same town/ municipal limits, may be permitted when the intention is to provide better accommodation or shifting into own building is proposed. Prior permission of the Competent Authority is required for any such shifting;” 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the petitioner institution was issued with provisional recognition by respondent No.3 vide proceedings L.Dis.No.295/A1/2022 dated 14.11.2022 for Classes PP to VII, valid for a period of ten years commencing from the academic year 2022–2023 to 2032– 2033. Further, the petitioner institution was issued a proposal for renewal of recognition for Classes VIII to X (English Medium) for the academic years 2023–2024 to 2032–2033 by respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.RR- IBPM-009-0009 dated 13.07.2023. However, respondent No.3, vide proceedings dated 17.09.2025 bearing No.1176/B4/2025, directed respondent No.4 to seize the petitioner institution from the management immediately and to submit a compliance report. 6. However, respondent No.3, vide proceedings dated 17.09.2025 bearing No.1176/B4/2025, directed respondent No.4 to seize the petitioner institution from the management immediately and to submit a compliance report. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, on 27.10.2025 at around 6:00 p.m., respondent No.4, along with certain officials, entered the premises of the petitioner institution and seized and locked the institution in a high-handed manner, without following any due procedure in accordance to law. The petitioner had earlier submitted a detailed representation dated 21.06.2025 addressed to the District Educational Officer, Ranga Reddy District, requesting permission to continue running the institution for the academic year 2025–2026 with assurance that petitioner Institution would take appropriate caution and care in the interest of the children, and sought reasonable time till the end of the academic year 2025–2026 to enable the petitioner institution to shift the school for better accommodation. However, despite the said representation dated 21.06.2025, respondent No.3, through respondent No.4, high-handedly seized and locked the petitioner institution on 27.10.2025. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in the middle of the academic year, 1,482 students along with the entire faculty/staff would be subjected to untold hardship and suffering, causing immense agony to both students, parents and staff. Therefore, in the interest of justice, appropriate orders need to be passed. 8. Learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly admits that the interest of the children is paramount, and that the petitioner institution may be directed to take all necessary steps to obtain permission from the competent authority by filing an application in accordance to law, seeking permission for shifting the petitioner institution, enclosing all relevant documents as per the rules in force, and to ensure that the institution is shifted before 31.05.2026 after obtaining all the required permissions as per law. 9. 9. This Court opines that State and the Education Department have an obligation to safeguard the interest of children and provide educational access and to ensure continuity of schooling and it is further State’s duty to protect Education as envisaged under, Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 38, 39(f), 41, 45 and 46 and in the present case, admittedly the order impugned passed by the 3 rd respondent and the action of the 4 th respondent in seizing and locking the petitioner Institution on 27.10.2025 in clear violation of principles of natural justice disrupts the education of the “1,482” students on the rolls of the petitioner Institution under Article 21-A(Right to Education) of the Constitution of India and is also in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the said students under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the fact that the issue pertains to 1,482 students, as well as their parents, faculty, teachers, and staff of the petitioner institution, this Court opines that the students should not be disturbed in the middle of the academic year. 11. Taking into consideration : (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing on behalf of the respondents, (c) The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition (d) The order impugned vide proc. Rc.No.1176/ B4/ 2025, dated 17.09.2025 of the 3 rd respondent addressed to the respondent No.4. (e) The duty of the State to protect Education and safeguard the interest of children and ensure educational access to children. (f) The hardship being meted out to 1482 students as well as the faculty, teachers, and staff of the petitioner Institution and also the parents of 1482 students The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order vide Proc. Rc.No.1176/ B4/ 2025 dated 17.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.3-the District Education Officer, Ranga Reddy District is set aside. The respondents are directed to forthwith unseal and hand over the petitioner institution to the petitioner herein to enable continuation of academic activities of the petitioner Institution till 31.05.2026. The impugned order vide Proc. Rc.No.1176/ B4/ 2025 dated 17.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.3-the District Education Officer, Ranga Reddy District is set aside. The respondents are directed to forthwith unseal and hand over the petitioner institution to the petitioner herein to enable continuation of academic activities of the petitioner Institution till 31.05.2026. The petitioner is directed to take all necessary steps and obtain the mandatory permissions by filing an application before the competent authority, as required for shifting the institution under Rule 22 of the A.P. Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (referred to and extracted above). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner undertakes to ensure that all the required permissions for shifting the petitioner institution as per the rules in force as on date are obtained before 31.05.2026 by the petitioner Institution and the said undertaking of the petitioner herein is brought on record in the present writ petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.