HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.17319 of 2011 Date: 09-08-2011 Between Sri Venkateshwara Educational & Research Society, Thorrur reptd. by its Secretary & Correspondent Dr. P. Soimeshwara Rao. … Petitioner and Govt. of A.P. reptd. by its Secretary, Department of Education, Hyderabad & 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No. 17319 of 2011 ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Education for 1st Respondent, Ms. A. Padma for Respondent No.2 and Ms. M. Vidyavathi for Respondent No.3. With the consent of both sides, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. Petitioner Society, which is said to be running a degree college under the name and style of Maharshi Degree College has filed this Writ Petition opposing the proposal to grant permission to the 3rd respondent Society for establishing a Junior College. The case of the petitioner is that it has established a degree college namely, Maharshi Degree College in the premises bearing Door No. 4-73/2, Main road, Palakurthy, Warangal District. The said premises has been taken on lease under a registered lease deed from one Chityala Yadaiah for a period of five years i.e. till 7.2.2012. Thus, the petitioner society has been in possession and enjoyment of the said premises in its own right as a lessee. The 3rd respondent society appears to have approached the 2nd respondent for permission to start a Junior College under the name and style of Vagdevi Junior College. Incidentally, the said Junior College was sought to be established in the same premises bearing Door No. 4-73/2, Main road, Palakurthy, Warangal District. Since the petitioner is the lessee of the said premises and as the 3rd respondent is also seeking to establish a college in the same premises, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. As may be seen from the pleadings in the Writ Petition, petitioner is opposing the permission sought for by the 3rd respondent-society setting up right as a lessee in respect of the aforesaid premises. Petitioner, therefore, submitted an objection dated 16.6.2011 in that regard and as the 2nd respondent is not inclined to consider that objection, it has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not within the competence of the 2nd respondent to grant permissions to more than one society to establish the educational institution in the same premises. The petitioner has also filed a suit O.S.No. 98 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Janagaon for perpetual injunction against the landlord and obtained ad-interim injunction dated 22.6.2011 in I.A.No. 193 of 2011 in O.S.No. 98 of 2011. Therefore, the petitioner being a lessee and, in occupation of the said premises, the 2nd respondent is under obligation to consider the objections of the petitioner before taking appropriate decision in the matter. It is, therefore, contended that the 2nd respondent be directed to consider the objection for taking appropriate decision. Ms. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the landlord of the premises has executed a separate registered lease deed on 27.4.2011 for a period of five years and it has been put in possession from 27.4.2011. Thus, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate right or grievance opposing the establishment of the college in the said premises. From the above said rival contentions, it is evident that there is a serious dispute as to the rights and possession of the subject premises bearing Door No. 4-73/2, Main road, Palakurthy, Warangal District. Provision of building, free from litigation, for establishing an educational institution, is a relevant factor for consideration for granting permission to start an educational institution. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the 2nd respondent to consider the objection of the petitioner dated 16.6.2011 before granting permission to the 3rd respondent- Society. It is true that the proposal of the 3rd respondent-Society to start a college has been formally accepted by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No. 23/ E-1/NJC/WGL/2011-12, dated 3.8.2011. A perusal of the same, however, does not show that the objection of the petitioner has been considered or adverted to. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider the objection of the petitioner dated 16.6.2011 and take appropriate decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after due notice to both the parties. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 9.8.2011 CHV