1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.P. (MD) No.4543 of 2011 & M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 R. Jothi Petitioner vs. 1 The Assistant Elementary Education Officer Sivagangai Sivagangai District 2 The District Elementary Educational Officer Sivagangai Sivagangai District 3 The Chief Educational Officer Sivagangai Sivagangai District 4 The District Collector Sivagangai Sivagangai District Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to take appropriate action such as stopping of running of "Sathani Nursery and Primary School", Sathani Village, Ilayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. For petitioner Mr. S. Meenakshi Sundaram For respondents Mr. M. Rajarajan, Govt. Advocate - - - - - ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ petition is filed by way of a public interest litigation whereby the relief sought is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the District Elementary Educational Officer, the second respondent herein, to stop the running of Sathani Nursery and Primary School, Sathani Village, Ilayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. 2. At the outset, it has to be stated that this writ petition is filed under the guise of a public interest litigation. According to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a social worker. The relief sought in this writ petition is as against a particular private school. But, that private school has not been impleaded as a party respondent. As such, on the ground of non-joinder of parties itself, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought. 3. Coming to the facts of the case, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said school should not be permitted to function, since as per the information given by the District Elementary Educational Officer by proceedings dated 22.01.2011, the school does not have basic amenities. As far as this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in the proceedings of the District Elementary Educational Officer dated 22.01.2011, what is stated is as follows: "1 gs;spapy; 20 x 20 mo mstpy; 7 gf;fh tFg;giwf; fl;ol';fs; cs;sJ vd;gij Ma;tpy; cWjp bra;ag;gltpy;iy/ 2 ,isahd;Fo cjtpj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyh; jilapd;ikr; rhd;W tH';fpa[s;shh;/ 3 tl;lhr;rpah; tH';Fk; chpikr; rhd;wpd; mog;gilapy; khzth; vz;zpf;if fz;fhzpf;fg;gLk; Fiwe;jgl;r ,l mst[ VJk; eph;zak; bra;ag;gltpy;iy/ ,ltrjp nghJkhdjhf cs;sjh vd;gij Ma;t[ mYtyh; Kot[ bra;thh;/ 4 ,isahd;Fo khtl;l chpikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;F epYitapy; cs;sJ/ 5 jw;nghJ gs;sp eilbgw;W tUk; fl;ol';fspd; kPJ fl;ol chpikr; rhd;W cWjpr; rhd;W Kiwna muR m';f Pfhuk; bgw;w bghwpahsh; kw;Wk; tl;lhl;rpahplk; ,Ue;J bgwg;gl;Ls;sJ/ 6 khzth;fs; vz;zpf;iff;F jf;fgo FoePh; trjp fHpg;gpl trjp Vw;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,Uf;if trjp. E}yf trjp. tpisahl;L cgfuz';fs;. fw;gpj;jy; cgfuz';fs; nghd;wtw;iw jw;nghJs;s epiyapy; ,Ue;J nkk;gLj;j mwp[t[Wj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/ kpd; trjp bra;ag;gltpy;iy/" As per this, though a stand has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a threat to the life of the students of the said school, a perusal of the said proceedings does not reveal any such a threat at all. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the said proceedings, classrooms are not as per the prescribed norms. But, a perusal of the said proceedings reveals that it is not stated in the said proceedings as to whether the classroom in the said school is to an extent of 20 x 20 feet. Apart from this, even as per this proceedings also, No Objection Certificate has been given and as far as the space is concerned, as per clause 3 of the said proceedings,, the concerned officer will further examine and decide the same. Besides, as per the said proceedings, drinking water facility, toilet facility, library facility and equipments for sports and also for teaching are available and directions are issued to meet the same and there is no whisper to the effect that the life of the school children is at risk. That apart, even as per this proceedings, with regard to the status of the classrooms also, the concerned official will inspect and decide the issue. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 4. Under such circumstances, the prayer sought by the petitioner that the school in question has to be stopped from running, cannot be granted. However, as mentioned in the proceedings of the District Elementary Educational Officer dated 22.01.2011, the District Elementary Educational Officer, the second respondent herein, is directed to take appropriate steps to inspect the said school with regard to the sufficiency of space and other requirements. With the above said direction, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1 The Assistant Elementary Education Officer Sivagangai Sivagangai District 2 The District Elementary Educational Officer Sivagangai Sivagangai District 3 The Chief Educational Officer Sivagangai Sivagangai District 4 The District Collector Sivagangai Sivagangai District + 1 cc to Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate, SR No.14466 + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.14606 W.P. (MD) No.4543 of 2011 20.04.2011 cad RJ/24.5.11 3p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/