1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1302 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tutcorin-628 002. 4.The District Elementary Educational Officer, T.R.Naidu Street, Tuticorin-628 002. 5.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin Urban, Tuticorin. ... Appellants/ Respondents Vs. R.Emerson Udaisingh, Manager & Correspondent, Carpentar Street, Middle School, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. ... Respondent/ Petitioner Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the common order of the learned Single Judge, dated 08.09.2011, made in WP.No.3881 of 2010 & W.P.No.9193 of 2002. Prayer in WP(MD).9193/2002 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to GO(ID) NO.20, School Education Department dated 20.02.2002 of the first respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to accord the minority status of the petitioner school. For Appellants : Mr.R.Anandharaj, Government Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] The appellants have come forward with this writ appeal challenging the order, dated 08.09.2011, passed by the writ court allowing W.P.No.9193 of 2002 filed by the respondent herein. 2.The 1st respondent filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the order of the 1st appellant in G.O.(ID)No.20, School Education Department, dated 20.02.2002, by which the request of the respondent to accord minority status to the respondent school was rejected, and consequently to direct the respondent to accord minority status to the respondent school. Pending the above writ petition, the same respondent filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3881 of 2010 seeking for a direction to the appellants herein to approve forthwith the transfer of management of the 1st respondent school, namely the Carpenter Street Middle School, Tuticorin, in the name of the respondent as a Minority Educational Institution and pass orders to that effect on his representation to the Chief Educational Officer and the District Elementary Educational Officer, dated 27.09.2006 and the reminder dated 27.11.2009. 3.The writ court, while allowing both the writ petitions by way of a common order, dated 08.09.2011, issued the following directions. "11. ..... In such view of the matter, the order impugned in W.P.No.9193 of 2002 cannot be sustained in law and accordingly, the same is set aside and consequently W.P.No.3881 of 2010 is disposed of with a direction against the respondents 3 and 4 to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 27.09.2006 and a reminder dated 27.11.2009 and pass orders regarding the transfer of management and also the claim of the petitioner for the purpose of treating it as a minority institution based on the above said judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of this court...." Aggrieved by a portion of the common order passed in respect of W.P.No.9193 of 2002, quashing the impugned Government Order rejecting the request of the respondent school to accord minority status to it, the present writ appeal has been filed. 4.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that the respondent school cannot be considered for granting the relief of minority status, as the said school was purchased by the present Manager and Correspondent from the original owner and originally the status of the school was a non-minority institution. It is further contended that the respondent has not applied for transfer of management and changed the same from non-minority status to minority status, as per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules framed thereunder. Learned Government Advocate would contend that the respondent school has not constituted a committee consisting of 11 members and no Resolution has been passed by them and as such there is no question of considering the relief of minority status to be given to the respondent school. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order passed by the writ court is liable to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5.Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein, would contend that the writ court passed a common order in respect of two writ petitions filed by the respondent, namely W.P.No.9193 of 2002 and W.P.(MD)No.3881 of 2010. It is contended that the grounds raised in the present writ appeal are only in respect of the issue involved in W.P.(MD)No.3881 of 2010, wherein the writ court directed the appellants 3 and 4 to consider the representation of the respondent, dated 27.09.200,6 and the reminder, dated 27.09.2009, and pass orders regarding the transfer of the management and also the claim of the respondent institution for the purpose of treating it as a minority institution. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the said order passed in respect of W.P.(MD)No.3881 of 2010 has not at all been challenged by the appellants and on the other hand, the appellants have challenged only the order passed in respect of W.P.No.9193 of 2002, wherein the writ court set aside the government order passed by the 1st appellant, dated 20.02.2002, rejecting the request of the respondent to accord minority status. Therefore, it is contended that there is absolutely no meaning in raising grounds in respect of the issue involved in another writ petition, which was not at all challenged by the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that it is not correct to state the respondent has never filed any application for transfer of management, as the writ court has specifically mentioned the dates of the application and the reminder sent by the respondent. A[part from that, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the writ court followed the order passed a learned Single, which was ultimately confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.120 of 2008, by the judgment dated 18.02.2008, in a similar matter, and the respondent institution herein has fulfilled all the requirements to seek the relief of minority status and also complied with the conditions required for transfer of management. 6.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put-forward by the counsel on either side and perused the order passed by the writ court. 7.At the outset, it is to be stated that the appellants herein have challenged only a part of the common order passed by the writ court, dated 08.09.2011, in respect of W.P.No.9193 of 2002 and not the another part of the order passed in respect of W.P.(MD)No.3881 of 2010. At this juncture, it is to be stated that a part of the order of the writ court passed in respect of W.P.(MD)No.3881 of 2010 has reached finality, as the appellants have not chosen to challenge that part of the order. It is pertinent to note that the contentions put-forward by the learned Government Advocate is mainly in respect of other part of the common order passed by the writ court, namely regarding the transfer of management. Though it is contended by the learned Government Advocate that the respondent institution has not preferred any application for transfer of management, the order of the writ court makes it abundantly clear that it has given specific direction to appellants 3 and 4 to consider the application of the respondent dated 27.03.2006 and the reminder dated 27.11.2009 and pass orders regarding the transfer of management and also the claim of the respondent for the purpose of treating the institution as a minority institution, based on the judgments rendered by a learned Single Judge, which was confirmed by a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 Division Bench, in a similar matter. The writ court in its order has incorporated the relevant portions of the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the judgment of Division Bench passed in W.A.(MD)No.20 of 2008, dated 15.02.2008. The extracted portions of the earlier order and judgment would make it crystal clear that the writ court has placed reliance on the said two decisions for passing the common order in the writ petitions preferred by the respondent herein. Another factor to be borne in mind is that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.120 of 2008, dated 18.02.2008, has also reached its finality, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondent. 8.In view of all the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to see any ground warranting interference in the orders of the writ court. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P. (MD)No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To: 1.The Secretary to the Government, Department of School Eduction, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of Elementary Eduction, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tutcorin-628 002. 4.The District Elementary Educational Officer, T.R.Naidu Street, Tuticorin-628 002. 5.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin Urban, Tuticorin. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.40650 +1cc to Mr.Issac Mohalal, Advocate, Sr.No.40558 gb GH : 23.11.2011 : 4p/8c Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1302 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:18.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/