IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 5662 of 2003 BETWEEN: M.B.H. School, Shamshabad, RR District rep by its Correspondnet B.P. Padma. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Director, School Education, Hyderabad. 2 The District Educational Officer, RR District. 3 Mennonite Brethren Church of India, rep by President, governing Council, M.B. Medical Centre, Jedcherla, Mahaboobnagar District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to declare the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.9108/B4/94 dated 28-2-2003 as illegal, arbitrary unjust by issuing Writ of Mandamus order or direction and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. S. SRINIVAS REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner – school, represented by its Correspondnet, questions the order passed by the Regional Joint Director of School Education in Rc.No.9108/B4/94 dated 28.02.2003 wherein the first respondent authorized the third respondent – Mennonite Brethren Church of India, to take possession of the school building along with open land, if any, pertaining to M.B. High School, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. The said order has been passed on the representation of the third respondent dated 13.02.2003 pursuant to the judgment of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in A.S.No.84 of 1999 dated 29.07.2002. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner – school submits that the Managing Committee of the M.B. Upper Primary School on 15.06.1964 appointed Smt. B. Padma as Correspondent of the school and the same was recognized by the District Educational Officer/second respondent and since then she has been functioning as the Correspondnet of the school. He further submits that she was the Headmistress of the school till 1994 and when she reached the age of superannuation, she started functioning as the Correspondent of the School and she was the sole drawing officer for payment of salaries for teaching and non-teaching staff and the school is imparting education to about 335 students from I to X classes. Originally in the year 1950 American Mission established schools at various places including the petitioner-school and in the year 1964, the American Mission decided to close down several schools due to financial constraints but the local people and the old students evinced interest in the then M.B. Upper Primary School; subsequently the school was converted into a high school and the same was also admitted to grant-in-aid. The American Mission was subsequently registered as MB Churches of India and the Governing Council of the MB Churches Board of Education addressed a letter dated 02.06.1964 to the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the petitioner – school recognizing the Managing Committee of the petitioner – school stating interalia that they have nothing to do with the affairs of the petitioner-school and also expressed their no objection for naming the school as MB Upper Primary School. 3. It is the case of the petitioner – school that the present management developed the school and thereafter registered a separate society – MB Welfare Society and the school was also upgraded as MB High School. As the third respondent herein started interfering with the management of the school, the petitioner – school i.e. MB High School managed and run by the Managing Committee, filed a suit in O.S.No.166 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad in which the Governing council of the MB Churches of India i.e. the third respondent and the Board of the Education of MB School were the defendants 1 and 2. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 10.09.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff therein preferred an appeal in A.S.No.84 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the appellate Court while dismissing the appeal only on the ground that the suit was not filed by the Managing Committee of the MB Welfare Society but it was filed only by the Correspondent, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It was observed that there is no averment in the pleadings of the plaint that the society known as Mennonite Brethren Welfare Society is the same society that was in existence to which the management and running of the plaintiff-school was entrusted under Ex.A1 letter dated 02.06.1964 and in continuation of that Managing Committee, the same Managing Committee is named after the society known as Mennonite Brethren Welfare Society in the year 1995 and that both are one and the same; as no evidence was adduced in that regard and in the absence of any such averments made in the plaint it was further observed that it cannot be said that the plaintiff who filed the suit is the same Managing Committee, which came into the management of the plaintiff-school and running the school and on that technical ground the appeal was dismissed. However, it was observed that the original Managing Committee to which the management and running of the plaintiff-school was entrusted and which developed the school to reach to the stage of high school, is entitled to manage and run the plaintiff-school without any interference from either of the defendants therein i.e. third respondent herein and another. 4. It appears that thereafter the third respondent made a representation dated 13.02.2003 before the Regional Joint Director of School Education requesting to pass necessary orders to take full control of the MB High School pursuant to the judgment in A.S.No.84 of 1999 dated 27.12.2002. There was no evidence to show that the third respondent herein continued its management to run the said school and in the absence of any judgment of the civil Court declaring which of the society or the Managing Committee is entitled to manage the property of the society, I am of the opinion that the Regional Joint Director of School Education has no manner of right or authority to decide the disputed questions with regard to the rights of the respective parties. The power of the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 is only to recognize the Managing Committee appointed by welfare society but the authorities under the Act have no right or authority to resolve the disputes among the respective managing committees or the societies. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Regional Joint Director of School Education is not an order appointing the Correspondnet or Headmaster but it is an order to take over the possession of the property of the MB High School by the third respondent and the same is unsustainable. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 1, 2008 DSK