THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22464 of 2011 Date: 09.08.2011 Between: M/s. Little Blooms Tutorials Guntur. … Petitioner and The District Educational Officer, Guntur District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22464 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri V.V.N. Narasimham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is an unregistered tutorial institution. It has filed this writ petition complaining that the respondents are taking steps to close down the institution as it is unregistered, contending that the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.200, Education (Ser.V) Department, dated 6.8.1997, governing the registration of tutorial institutions have not been implemented. 3. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner-institution was established in the year 2008 and is offering coaching to the students and preparing them for the examinations conducted by the State authorities. The complaint of the petitioner-institution is that even though it has been conducting the institution without any complaints, the officials of the respondents, in particular respondent No.1, visited the institution on 6.8.2011 and instructed to close the institution on the premise that it is an unrecognized institution. The petitioner states that the tutorial, which it is running, is not a school, therefore, the respondents have no authority to interfere with the affairs of the institution. Since the respondents are taking steps to close down, it has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. Sri V.V.N. Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the aforesaid facts, submits that the tutorial-institution run by the petitioner is not a school and, therefore, interference by the respondents with the functioning of the petitioner-institution is illegal. The learned counsel also submits that even if the petitioner is treated as a tutorial institution, the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 6.8.1997, have not been implemented facilitating the institution to get itself registered. He, therefore, contends that, either way, the respondents are not entitled to disturb the functioning of the petitioner-institution. The learned counsel seeks to rely on the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.25936 of 2009 and batch, dated 1.12.2009. 5. I have considered the aforesaid contentions with reference to the relevant rules. 6. Admittedly, even though the institution was established in the year 2008, it has not been registered so far. The State Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 32 read with Section 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 issued rules in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 6.8.1997, called “The Andhra Pradesh Tutorial Institutions (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 1997 (for brevity “the Rules”). As per Section 1(2) of the Rules, the said rules came into force at once. 7. Indisputably, the said rules apply to the petitioner- institution. Rule 5 of the Rules prescribes that no tutorial institution, on or after coming into force of these rules shall start functioning without prior registration with the competent authority. Under the said rule, an existing institution shall also get registered within ninety days from the date of commencement of the Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules provides that the District Educational Officer is the registering authority, who is competent to make registration or renew the registration of the tutorial institutions irrespective of the coaching courses offered, within the local limits of his jurisdiction. Rule 4 of the Rules prescribes the procedure for registration of tutorial institutions, according to which a tutorial institution in order to be eligible for registration is required to satisfy the conditions enumerated under Rule 6 of the Rules and the registration would be granted only after the institution satisfies the said conditions. Thus, it is mandatory that an institution shall get itself registered before it starts functioning in accordance with the Rules. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner-institution is not registered. Therefore, the action complained against the respondents cannot be found fault with. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner-institution is entitled for a notice before seeking closure of the institution. I am of the view that in a case of this nature, where institutions are run without registration or recognition and in the admitted fact scenario that the petitioner has not obtained registration eversince 2008, the petitioner-institution is not entitled for any prior notice. Placing reliance on the orders in W.P.No.25936 of 2009 and batch, dated 1.12.2009, the learned counsel contends that the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 6.8.1997, have not come into force. The said contention is exfacie untenable. A perusal of Rule 1(2) shows that the Rules came into force at once. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in the writ petition. 11. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 09.08.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22464 of 2011 09.08.2011 (Msr)