IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 670 OF 2008 MRS. PAULINE RODRIGUES ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Joseph Vaz, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Mahesh S. Sonak, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. N. N. Sardessai, Advocate for respondent No.5. Coram:- P. B. MAJMUDAR & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 3rd March, 2009 P.C. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed that an appropriate direction may be given to respondent No.2 Director of Education Panaji, Goa to take appropriate action against respondent No.4 Society which is running an educational institute. The petitioner is an individual occupying Flat No.B-11 in Shangri La Apartment, B Block, Miramar, Panaji. The grievance of the petitioner is that just opposite to her flat, in Flat No.B-9, respondent No.4 is running a classroom which creates nuisance so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Vaz that as per the provisions of the School Education Act and the Rules, an educational institute cannot be allowed to function in a residential locality. The petition is opposed by the Society which is running the institute, as well as the original owner of the premises who has let out a part of his premises for running classes. 3. Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, as well as Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the original owner submitted that the school is functioning since the year 1993 i.e. much before the petitioner occupying the flat No. B-11, which she has been occupying since the year, 2004 on the basis of an agreement of sale. It is submitted by both the learned Advocates that the petitioner now cannot make any grievance after having occupied the flat subsequently and before commencement of the school in the year 1993. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Sonak that the School which is being run by respondent No.4 is a finest school in the State and even as per the Inspection Report of the Directorate of Education, the school is functioning in a proper manner. Mr. Vaz, however, on the other hand submitted that it is true that some of the clauses are being conducted on the ground floor of the building, but it is a garage and the said premises is inadequate for the purpose of running a school. Mr. Vaz further submitted that just opposite to the flat of the petitioner, classroom is made operational since the year 2007. On this point there is a serious dispute raised by the other side and, Mr. Sonak submitted that the room which is opposite to the flat of the petitioner is being used by the School as a computer laboratory and it is not being used as a classroom. In our view, we cannot decided such disputed questions of facts in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We also do not have any material before us to show whether the premises in which the school is being run is adequate to be used as classroom or not, or it is a garage. It is also not necessary for us to examine the submission of Mr. Sonak and Mr. Sardessai that since the petitioner's son was denied admission in the school run by respondent No.4, that the petitioner has initiated the proceedings against the School. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the petitioner to make an appropriate representation in connection with the subject-matter, to the Director of Education, Panaji, Goa within a period of one month from today and, in case the Director of Education receives such a representation, he may decide the same, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, the School Authority as well as the original owner of the premises, as early as possible and in any case, on or before 31st August, 2009. The decision shall be communicated to the petitioner as well as the School Authority, also the original owner of the premises. Ultimately, if the decision is against any of the parties, it will be open to the said party to take out proceedings in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated any issue on merits and all points and submissions of both sides are kept open. We make it clear that we have not expressed opinion, in any manner, as it is the for the Director of Education to take out appropriate decision on such a representation as he deems fit and proper, in accordance with law, and after hearing the concerned parties in this behalf. Petition disposed off accordingly. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. U. D. SALVI, J. ssm.