ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 2 . Petitioner is a School, established about forty (40) years back. It is being run by Sri Balaji Educational Society which is a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act bearing registration No.694 of 1985, dated 12.04.1985. There are 2,400 students and also 150 employees including teachers as on today. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that since 1997, the petitioner-school was granted recognition/extension of temporary recognition in respect of classes VI to X (English Medium), the latest being for the years 2006-07 to 2025-26 vide proceedings, dated 05.02.2015 by respondent No.3. The petitioner-school has also extension of temporary recommendation for the period from 2016-17 to 2025-26, dated 27.12.2014 issued by respondent No.4. According to the petitioner, there are no lapses on its part. 4. While the things stood thus, one Mr. Sultan Mahmmod Ali has submitted a representation to respondent No.4 stating that the petitioner is running a school without producing No Objection Certificates of Fire Department and Traffic Department etc. It is also collecting exorbitant fees, which is in violation of the fee Structure prescribed by the Government. On receipt of the said complaint, respondent No.4 herein requested respondent No.5 to go through the contents of the same, conduct enquiry and submit a report. On receipt of the said representation, respondent No.4 has issued letter, dated 01.09.2022 requesting the petitioner to submit copies of the same. Petitioner-school has submitted a representation, dated 16.09.2022. Thereafter, respondent No.4 requested respondent No.5 to conduct enquiry and submit a report. 5. In compliance with the said order, respondent No.5 has submitted the report, dated 24.09.2022. On receipt of the said representation, respondent No.4 has issued letter, dated 01.09.2022 requesting the petitioner to submit copies of the same. Petitioner-school has submitted a representation, dated 16.09.2022. Thereafter, respondent No.4 requested respondent No.5 to conduct enquiry and submit a report. 5. In compliance with the said order, respondent No.5 has submitted the report, dated 24.09.2022. In the said report, he has categorically stated that he sought information from the petitioner-school with regard to the following aspects: “1) No objection certificate from the Fire Service Department 2) No objection certificate from Traffic Police 3) PTO & ETR Copy 4) Occupancy Certificate 5) Structure Soundness Certificate of the school building/premises 6) An Administrative report and audited statement of the accounts of the school duly attested by the charted account 7) Details of the pay structure and fee structure fixed by the governing body submitted and get it approved in the DEO, Hyderabad District 8) An affidavit to the effect that there is no deviation or violation of norms/rules prescribed by the government time to time. 9) Class wise permission to enhance section for each 10) List of total number of qualified staff appointed.” 6 . He has stated that the petitioner Management informed respondent No.5 that during the lockdown due to termite infection in the school, several papers were damaged and it is sorting and salvaging all the documents filed. But, the petitioner has submitted copies of ETR and PTO, Structure Certificate of the school building/premises and the details of pay structure and fee structure. 7. He has further stated that the Correspondent of the petitioner did not come in contact during the visits and the other administrative persons, Sri Dhanraj and Smt. Anwarunnisa spoken with them. Thus, according to him, petitioner management failed to submit the required information as desired by the Department in the light of the Central Child Rights Commission orders. He has also stated that the petitioner-school has already filed a suit against Sri Sultan Mahmood Ali for recovery of fee and it is pending. Therefore, he requested respondent No.4 to take action against the petitioner-School. 8. It is also relevant to note that respondent No.4 has not taken any action pursuant to the report, dated 24.09.2022. Therefore, the said Mr. Therefore, he requested respondent No.4 to take action against the petitioner-School. 8. It is also relevant to note that respondent No.4 has not taken any action pursuant to the report, dated 24.09.2022. Therefore, the said Mr. Sultan Mahmood Ali has filed a W.P.No.6196 of 2023 to declare the action of respondent No.4 herein in not taking any action pursuant to the report, dated 24.09.2022 of respondent No.5. Vide order, dated 15.02.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.4 herein to take action against the petitioner pursuant to the report, dated 24.09.2022 of respondent No.5 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The said Sultan Mahmood Ali has filed a Contempt Case vide C.C.No.1698 of 2024 alleging willful and deliberate violation of the said order by the petitioner herein. The said CC came up for hearing before this Court on 28.03.2025, on which date learned Government Pleader for School Education informed this Court that respondent No.4 has already issued show cause notice, dated 15.03.2025 and respondent No.4 will take action against the petitioner herein strictly in accordance with law and comply with the order, dated 15.02.2024 in W.P.No.6196 of 2023. Recording the said submission, vide order, dated 28.03.2025, this Court closed the Contempt Case. 9. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, vide order, dated 17.12.2024, respondent No.4 has imposed an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards fine on the petitioner for violation of the Rules prescribed by the Government vide G.O.No.1, dated 01.01.1994. Respondent No.4 is present today in the Court in person and she has confirmed about the payment of the said cost by the petitioner herein. The petitioner-School has already filed a suit vide O.S.No.3577 of 2022 before the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of money against the said Mr. Sultan Mahmood Ali. He is the maternal uncle of a student of the petitioner-School and he is guardian of the said student. He has not paid School fee. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the said suit and it is pending. 10. Sultan Mahmood Ali. He is the maternal uncle of a student of the petitioner-School and he is guardian of the said student. He has not paid School fee. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the said suit and it is pending. 10. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has issued show cause notice, dated 15.03.2025 to the petitioner stating that respondent No.5 vide report, dated 14.02.2025 informed respondent No.3 that the petitioner did not submit genuine certificates including No Objection Certificate from the concerned department i.e., sanitary certificate, Structural Soundness Certificate etc. The said certificates produced by the petitioner are found not to be genuine. Therefore, respondent No.3 granted seven (7) days time to the petitioner to submit explanation. 11. Petitioner has submitted explanation, dated 25.03.2025 denying the allegations made by respondent No.3 in the show cause notice, dated 15.03.2025. Thereafter, vide proceedings, dated 21.04.2025 respondent No.3 withdrawn the recognition issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of classes VI to X. Challenging the said order, petitioner filed the present writ petition. 12. Perusal of record would also reveal that vide proceedings, dated 23.04.2025, respondent No.4 withdrawn the recognition issued in favour of the petitioner for the classes pre-primary I to V (English Medium). 13. Perusal of the same would reveal that the said proceedings were issued by respondent No.4 without following due procedure laid down under law, more particularly, issuance of the show cause notice to the petitioner calling for explanation etc. Respondent No.4 has issued the said proceedings dated 15.07.2024 of respondent No.2, order, dated 15.02.2024 in W.P.No.6196 of 2023 and proceedings dated 21.04.2025 of respondent No.3. Vide the said proceedings, dated 23.04.2025, respondent No.4 has withdrawn the recognition of the petitioner for classes pre-primary I to V (English Medium). Therefore, respondent No.4 has to follow the procedure laid down under law and also afford an opportunity to the petitioner before withdrawal of the said recognition. Whereas in the present case, respondent No.4 did not follow the said procedure. The same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and also the procedure laid down under the Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘The Act, 1982’) and the Telangana Educational Institutions (Establishment, recognition, Administration and control of Schools under private management) Rules, 1993 (for short “the Rules, 1993”). 14. The impugned proceedings, dated 21.04.2025 of respondent No.3 are basing on the report of respondent No.5, dated 14.02.2025. 14. The impugned proceedings, dated 21.04.2025 of respondent No.3 are basing on the report of respondent No.5, dated 14.02.2025. In the report, dated 14.02.2025 respondent No.5 informed respondent No.4 that the Sanitary Certificate, Structural Soundness Certificate submitted by the petitioner were not genuine. The copy of the same was furnished to the school during the course of hearing. The same is also mentioned in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned proceedings, dated 21.04.2025. 15. In the light of the same, this Court directed Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing respondent No.6 to get instructions from the officers, who said to have been issued the said certificates. On instructions, he has submitted that the Assistant Engineer, Circle No.7, GHMC has received letter, dated 05.02.2024 from respondent No.5 with a request to inform him about the genuineness of the Structural Soundness Certificate, dated 17.12.2024, submitted by the petitioner, along with the application. Vide letter, dated 10.02.2025, the Assistant Engineer, GHMC has informed respondent No.5 that the signature on the said certificate does not belonged to him. He has furnished copy of the said letter, dated 05.02.2025 and letter, dated 10.02.2025 of the Assistant Engineer. The same are placed on record. 16. On instructions, he would further submit that the Assistant Medical Officer of Health, Circle No.7, GHMC, has issued sanitary certificate submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, in the light of the said submission, report, dated 14.02.2025 of respondent No.5 stating that the said sanitary certificate submitted by the petitioner is not genuine is factually in correct. 17. Section 31 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 (for short “the Act, 1982”) deals with the Inspection of educational institutions, it is relevant and the same is extracted below:- “31. Inspection of educational institutions. (1) The Government or the competent authority may authorise any officer not below such rank as may be prescribed to inspect any educational institution in the State. (2) The officer authorised under sub-section (1) shall exercise general powers of inspection over the working of the educational institution. (3) The manager and the employees of the educational institution shall at all reasonable times be bound to afford to the aforesaid officer all such assistance and facilities as may be required for the purpose of such inspection. (2) The officer authorised under sub-section (1) shall exercise general powers of inspection over the working of the educational institution. (3) The manager and the employees of the educational institution shall at all reasonable times be bound to afford to the aforesaid officer all such assistance and facilities as may be required for the purpose of such inspection. (4) The manager shall comply with such directions or suggestions as may be given by the competent authority on the report of the aforesaid officer: Provided that the manager aggrieved by any such direction or suggestion may appeal, within thirty days from the date of receipt of such direction or suggestion to the prescribed authority whose decision on such appeal shall be final.” 18. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1993 deals with the competent authority to inspect the schools and the same is extracted below:- Category of Schools Competent Authority (1) (2) (1) (a) Pre-primary, primary and Upper Primary Schools District Educational Officer (2) Secondary Schools (Government) (Substituted for “Regional Joint Director of School Education G.O.Ms.No.267, Education (Ser.V), dated 17.08.1998.) 19. Rule 9 of the Rules, 1993 deals with Recognition of Schools and the same is extracted below:- “(1) Application for recognition in Form III shall be submitted by the educational agency to the competent authority before the 31st July of the year in which the permission has been granted under rule 7, if the management has fulfilled all the conditions mentioned under Rules 5 and 12] (2) The application among other things shall be accompanied by: (a) documentary evidence regarding the purchase of library books, laboratory equipment, sports material, furniture etc. (b) evidence of appointment of qualified staff as per staff pattern prescribed by competent authority from time to time; (c) evidence of providing sufficient accommodation as prescribed in rule 6. (3) On receipt of applications the competent authority shall make or cause such verification as is necessary and shall communicate a decision within three months. In case of refusal the order shall indicate the reasons. (4) Grant of recognition shall be in Form IV; (5)[Recognition shall be valid for a period of ten academic years. The educational agency shall, before expiry of recognition, seek renewal. In case of refusal the order shall indicate the reasons. (4) Grant of recognition shall be in Form IV; (5)[Recognition shall be valid for a period of ten academic years. The educational agency shall, before expiry of recognition, seek renewal. However by the end of April every year, the educational agency shall file an affidavit to the effect the "there is no deviation or violation of norms/ rules prescribed by the Government from time to time.] [Substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 74, Education (SE [PS-I]), dated 11-9-2006.] (6) The renewal of recognition shall be guided by the same principles as are applicable to grant of original recognition. The fee for the renewal shall be [Rs.5,000/-] [Substituted for 2,000/-' by G.O. Ms. No. 58, Education (SE [PS-I]), dated 13-7-2006.] in respect of Secondary schools and [Rs.2,500/-] [Substituted for 'Rs. 1, 000/-' by Ibid.] in respect of all other schools.” 20. Rule 11 of the Rules, 1993 deals with withdrawal OF Permission and/or Recognition and the same is extracted below: “10. Withdrawal of Permission and/or Recognition. - Permission and/ or Recognition, granted under these rules is liable for withdrawal by the competent authority for violation of these rules. Provided that the educational agency shall be given an opportunity of making representation on the proposed action by competent authority.” 21. Rule 18 of the Rules, 1993 deals with Criteria for fixing fee structure and allocation of revenue earned as fee and the same is extracted below:- “18. Criteria for fixing fee structure and allocation of revenue earned as fee. (1) Every un-aided school or upgraded aided school (without aid for higher classes) shall have its own fee structure to determine the fee to be collected from the students of various courses/classes; (2) The Governing Body attached to the institution is empowered to prescribe the fee structure. Criteria for fixing fee structure and allocation of revenue earned as fee. (1) Every un-aided school or upgraded aided school (without aid for higher classes) shall have its own fee structure to determine the fee to be collected from the students of various courses/classes; (2) The Governing Body attached to the institution is empowered to prescribe the fee structure. While fixing the fee structure, the Governing Body shall take into account the following: (a) Expenditure involving payment of salaries and other benefits to the staff: (b) Expenditure involving payment of rent for the building occupied by the institution and the upkeep of the building; (c) Expenditure involving electricity and water charges; (d) Expenditure involving office requirement like stationery, stamps etc., (e) Expenditure involving class room needs like chalk, dusters etc; (f) Expenditure involving purchase of books for the library and chemicals and specimens for the laboratory; (g) Expenditure involving payments to the Auditors engaged for auditing the accounts; (h) Expenditure on contribution towards Education Cess; (i) Any other miscellaneous expenditure. (3) It is open for the governing body to take a decision to collect fees from students either monthly or quarterly or half yearly. However. the special fee shall be collected only once at the beginning of the academic year. (4) The fees collected from the students shall be allocated as to meet the following requirements: (a) 5% of the fees collected shall be earmarked as personal income to the management; (b) 15% of the fees collected shall be utilised for the maintenance of the institutions towards expenditure involving the building rent, electricity and water charges, stationery etc. required for the office payment to be made to menials and auditors, purchase of library books, chemicals, specimens and other material required for the laboratory and expenditure involving the upkeep of the institution etc., (c) 15% of the fees collected shall be earmarked for the developmental activities of the institution i.e. expenditure involving opening of additional courses, classes, sections and up-gradations of the institutions, construction of additional accommodations, acquiring costly equipment and furniture, purchase of land for the use of the institution and the like; (d) 50% of the fees collected shall be earmarked towards payment of salaries to the staff; (e) 15% of the fees collected shall be earmarked as management's contribution towards staff benefits like gratuity, teachers provident fund, Group Insurance Scheme etc. (5) The educational agency shall maintain separate accounts in one or more banks for the amounts allocated for various purposes mentioned above so that the amount allocated for a specific purpose shall not be diverted for another purpose. These accounts opened as specified above shall be operated through joint accounts in the name of the Secretary/ Correspondent, Manager of the Institution and the Head Master/Principal of the Institution; (6) The amounts falling under items (a) to (e) of sub-rule (4) are subject to inspection and auditing by the Auditors appointed for the purpose by the governing body.” 22. Section 21 of the Act, 1982 deals with Grant or withdrawal of recognition of institutions imparting education and Section 21 (3) of the is extracted below:- “Where the Government are of opinion that the recognition granted to any local authority educational institution or private educational institution should, in the public interest, be withdrawn, they may, after giving one month's notice to the manager of such institution to make any representation, withdraw, by notification, the recognition granted to the said institution.” 23 . As per Rule 3 of the Rules, 1993 respondent No.3 is the competent authority to initiate action. As discussed supra, respondent No.3 did not follow the aforesaid procedure. He has not mentioned about the various lapses/deficiency on the part of the petitioner in the show cause notice, dated 15.03.2025. 24. In the show cause notice, dated 15.03.2025, the allegations leveled against the petitioner herein are that it has submitted fake certificates i.e., Sanitary Certificate, Structural Soundness Certificate. Respondent No.3 has to grant thirty (30) days time to submit explanation to the show cause notice, dated 15.03.2025. He has granted only seven (7) days time. Therefore, show cause notice, dated 15.03.2025 and the impugned proceedings, dated 21.04.2025 of respondent No.3 is in violation of the procedure laid down under law and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Respondent No.3 has to consider the report, dated 24.09.2022 of respondent No.5 and conduct enquiry strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act, 1982 and the Rules, 1993. In the present case, respondent No.3 did not follow the said procedure. 25. As discussed supra, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are present in the Court in person. They stated that except submission of fake certificates, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. In the present case, respondent No.3 did not follow the said procedure. 25. As discussed supra, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are present in the Court in person. They stated that except submission of fake certificates, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. There is no issue with regard to Structure of the building in which petitioner is running school. There is no danger to the lives of the students and teaching staff. The school is running since last forty (40) years. If there is any lapse/deficiency including collection of fee contrary to fee structure announced by the Government. They will take action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and also the procedure laid down under the Education Act, 1982 and Rules 1983. 26. In the light of the said submission, the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in closing the petitioner-school, withdrawing recognition and erecting banner to the gate of the school cautioning the parents not to take admission in the petitioner-school is arbitrary and illegal. 27. In the light of the said discussion with the consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for School Education and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.6, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. 28. This Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the show cause notice, dated 15.03.2025, the impugned proceedings, dated 21.04.2025 of respondent No.3 and the proceedings, dated 23.04.2025 of respondent No.4. Liberty is granted to respondent No.3 to conduct enquiry strictly in accordance with the Act, 1982 and the Rules, 1993 by putting the petitioner on notice and affording it an opportunity. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall specifically mention about the lapses/deficiencies on the part of the petitioner as stated by respondent No.5 in the report, dated 24.09.2022 and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to submit explanation by furnishing copies of the same. On receipt of the same, petitioner shall submit explanation and shall cooperate with respondent Nos.3 and 4 in concluding the enquiry. However, respondent No.3 shall complete the said exercise within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, petitioner shall submit explanation and shall cooperate with respondent Nos.3 and 4 in concluding the enquiry. However, respondent No.3 shall complete the said exercise within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to seek any information from respondent Nos.3 and 4 and raise all the grounds and contentions which it has raised in the present Writ Petition before respondent Nos.3 and 4 during the course of enquiry and it is for respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the same. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.