ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri Daraboina Subramanyam Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and Sri Sudarshan Malugari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5. 2. The petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.31916 of 2025 seeking the prayer as under: “…to (i) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Final Order dated 07.10.2025 in E.P.No.982 of 2024 in O.S. No.2696 of 1997 on the file of the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India, in so far as it results in the eviction of a functioning school during the mid-academic year, and consequently stay the execution of the warrant passed in EP No.982/2024 in O.S. No. 2696 of 1997 till 30.06.2026, to safeguard the rights of minor students (ii) Direct Respondents No.1 to 3 (State, Commissioner, and District Educational Officer) to take immediate measures under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTE Act to ensure continuity of education for all affected students till 30 06 2026, (iii) Direct the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (SCPCR) to monitor compliance under Section 31 and 32 of the RTE Act, and submit a status report before this Hon’ble Court ...” 3. The case of the Petitioners in W.P.No.31916 of 2025 as per the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the said writ petition, in brief, is as under : The petitioners are students in M/s Radiant High School, Musheerabad. The landowner of the said school premises i.e., 4 th respondent obtained an eviction decree dated 24.07.2001 against the said school in OS No. 2696 of 1997 filed in VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, subsequently, an Execution Petition was filed by the 4 th respondent and the same was allowed by the court vide order dated 07.10.2025 passed in E.P.No.982 of 2024 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad directing the school authorities i.e., the 5 th respondent to vacate the school premises immediately. It is further the case of the petitioners that the academic year 2025-2026 completes on 31.05.2026 and any relocation of the said school based on the impugned eviction order dated 07.10.2025 would result into irreparable loss to the 750 students and their parents. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions to safeguard the fundamental right of education of the 750 students who are studying in the said school. 4. The facts in respect of all the other writ petitions pertaining to this Batch of writ petitions and the party respondents and the relief sought for are identical, hence the Batch of these writ petitions are disposed off vide this Common Order. 5. PERUSED THE RECORD (A) This Court passed interim orders dated 24.10.2025 in I .A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.31916 of 2025 and batch observing as under: “ Heard Sri Subramanyam Daraboina, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Education appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under in the present I.A.No.01 of 2025:- “…….to pass Interim Order by suspending the Operation of eviction Warrant, orders issued as a consequence of Allowing E.P.No. 982/2024 in OS No. 2696/1997 on the file of Hon’ble VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and further stay the E.P proceedings dated 07.10.2025 pending disposal of the Writ Petition pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass….” It is the specific case of the petitioner that the present writ petition filed by the representative i.e., parent of student attending the School i.e., M/s. Radiant High School, Musheerabad operating in the Suit Schedule property in O.S.No.2696 of 1997 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad owned by the 4 th respondent herein, and the 4 th respondent had obtained a civil decree in his favour and subsequently, the 4 th respondent had filed E.P.No.982 of 2024 which was allowed, in 4 th respondent’s favour resulting in a final order, dated 07.10.2025 directing immediate eviction. Aggrieved by the said final order, dated 07.10.2025 passed in E.P.No.982 of 2024 on the file of the VII Junior Civil Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present writ petition is filed by a parent, on the grounds of flagrant violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 21-A (Right to Education) of the Constitution of India. PERUSED THE RECORD:- It is an admitted fact that the school currently accommodates around 750 students, aged between 4 to 16 years, whose academic year 2025-26 is ongoing and is scheduled to conclude on 30.06.2026. A bare perusal of the record indicates a detailed representation, dated 14.10.2025 of the parents addressed to the 2 nd respondent herein seeking 2 nd respondent intervention to protect the fundamental Right to Education of the students following the impugned final order, dated 07.10.2025 in E.P.No.982 of 2024 in O.S.No.2696 of 1997 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which had even been acknowledged by the 2 nd respondent on 16.10.2025 itself. A bare perusal of the record further indicates that the judgment debtor i.e., the defendant in the suit O.S.No.2696 of 1997 filed by the 4 th respondent herein on the file of the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E.P.N.982 of 2024 in O.S.No.2696 of 1997, specifically averred at para No.4 of the said counter affidavit as under:- “ I further mention that, the written compromise proposal was made with an intention to vacate the premises owned by the plaintiff’s which contained three specific conditions to address the dispute and settle down. The proposal was specifically made to protect the interest of the students who are perusing their education as the rented premises is only used as school and for school operations, neither the Plaintiff’s nor Defendant stay in the subject rented premises. The copy of the compromise proposal is annexed herewith for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court. I request this Hon’ble Court to allow me to read the compromise proposal and treat the same as part of this counter. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in a judgment dated 20.04.2021 reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/ s. Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, referred to Whirlpool Corporation Vs. I request this Hon’ble Court to allow me to read the compromise proposal and treat the same as part of this counter. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in a judgment dated 20.04.2021 reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/ s. Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, referred to Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks (reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 ) and further the said view had been reiterated by a Full Bench of the Apex Court (3 Judges) in a judgment reported in (2021) SCC Online SC page 801 in Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited Vs. State of Bihar and Others dated 24.09.2021 and in the said judgment it is observed at para No.28 as under : 28. The principles of law which emerge are that: (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person; (iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; (v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” This Court opines that the facts of the present case and the material on record clearly indicates that the present case falls under Clause (i) and first limb of clause (iii) and also clause (iv). A five judges Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment, dated 03.01.2023 in Kaushal Kishor Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4, held that a fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities. This Court opines that a dispute between a landlord and a tenant should not adversely impact 750 innocent students and the 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, in the present case, admittedly as borne on record, no steps had been initiated by the 2 nd respondent in the said direction and the sudden eviction by virtue of the order impugned disrupts the education of the petitioner herein under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and also petitioner’s right to life and personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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 learned Government Pleader for Education appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. c) The averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner/ parent in support of present writ petition. d) The final order, dated 07.10.2025 in E.P.No.982 of 2024 in O.S.No.2696 of 1997 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. c) The averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner/ parent in support of present writ petition. d) The final order, dated 07.10.2025 in E.P.No.982 of 2024 in O.S.No.2696 of 1997 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. e) The representation, dated 14.10.2025 of the parents of the children studying in Radiant High School, Musheerabad addressed to the 2 nd respondent herein, dated 14.10.2025 which had been acknowledged by the 2 nd respondent on 16.10.2025, but the failure on the part of the 2 nd respondent to discharge its duty to affirmatively protect the rights of the 750 students under Article 21 of the Constitution. f) The State duty to protect education and safeguard the interest of children and ensure educational access to children. g) The averments made at para No.4 of the counter affidavit filed by the judgment debtor in E.P.No.982 of 2024 in O.S.No.2696 of 1997 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad indicating the settlement proposal put-forth by the judgment debtor for consideration by the decree holder i.e., 4 th respondent herein and also the Court below(referred to and extracted above). h) The hardship being meted out to the petitioner herein by virtue of the final order, dated 07.10.2025 passed in E.P.No.982 of 2024 in O.S.No.2696 of 1997 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad i) The observations in the Judgments of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:- i) (2021) 6 SCC 771 ii)2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4 There shall be stay of all further proceedings in pursuance to the final order, dated 07.10.2025 passed in E.P.No.982 of 2024 in O.S.No.2696 of 1997 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad till 11.11.2025. ” The above said interim orders are in force as on date. 6. I n the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4 th respondent in the present W.P.No.31916 of 2025 it is specifically averred at para 10 as under: “10. ” The above said interim orders are in force as on date. 6. I n the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4 th respondent in the present W.P.No.31916 of 2025 it is specifically averred at para 10 as under: “10. I submit that in reply to the allegations made in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, in view of the statement made by the petitioner that the execution petition be stayed until a reasonable time i.e., till the end of academic year 2025-26 i.e., 18.04.2026 and to allow the students to complete their examinations and the school management to relocate without prejudice to the Decree holder’s right to possession; it is stated that, taking into paramount consideration the welfare of the school children, the Respondent No.4 is willing to defer the execution of the decree until 18.04.2026, which is the last working day of the School Academic Calendar Year for 2025-26 (For Classes I to X). Copy of Government Memo No.3660/SE.PROG.II/A1/2025 dated 06.06.2025 is herewith filed and marked as R4-13. At this juncture, the Respondent No.4 would like to propose that the legal heirs of Mr. Syed Anwarullah Bakhitiari shall file an undertaking before this Hon’ble Court that they shall immediately and completely vacate the said premises in question immediately next day after 18.04.2026 i.e., the last working day of the Academic Year 2025-2026 and deliver peaceful physical possession to the Respondent No.4. Failing which, this Hon’ble Court shall penalise the legal heirs of Mr. Syed Anwarullah Bakhitiari i.e., JDR in E.P. and liberty may be given to the Respondent No.4 to proceed with contempt proceedings. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4 th respondent submits that the stand of the 4 th respondent is same in the entire batch of these writ petitions. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5 th respondent undertakes before this Court that the subject premises in question i.e., 1-5-23, Musheerabad, Hyderabad would be vacated by the 5 th Respondent Management under any circumstances on or before 20.04.2026. 9. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties on record in the batch of these writ petitions agreed in principle for disposal of all the writ petitions bringing the aforesaid submissions and undertaking of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5 th Respondent Management on record. 10. 9. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties on record in the batch of these writ petitions agreed in principle for disposal of all the writ petitions bringing the aforesaid submissions and undertaking of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5 th Respondent Management on record. 10. Bringing the above said undertaking made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5 th respondent on record and upon consent of all the respective parties through their learned counsels on record, the present writ petitions are disposed off directing the 5 th respondent to vacate the subject premises i.e., 1-5-23, Musheerabad, Hyderabad under any circumstances on or before 20.04.2026 as per the undertaking given by the 5 th respondent Management before this Court in the present writ petition No.31916 of 2025 and aforesaid connected writ petitions. 11. I t is further observed that the interim orders granted by this Court in I .A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.31916 of 2025 and batch dated 24.10.2025 shall remain in force till 20.04.2026 and hence there shall be stay of all further proceedings in pursuance to the final order dated 07.10.2025 passed in E.P.No.982 of 2024 in O.S.No.2696 of 1997 on the file of learned VI I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad till 20.04.2026. 12. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed off. However there shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.