IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18601 of 2004 Between: St. Joseph's Education Society (Regd), Rep by its Secretary Mr. U.G. Reddy, S/o. Late Joji Reddy, Aged 68 years, R/o. 48, Aravindnagar, Domalguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. rep by its Secretary Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Higher Education, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Board of Intermediate, State of A.P. Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent sin not restoring the management of St. Joseph Junior College to the petitioner society and not disposing off the representation of the petitioner dated 22- 6-2004 submitted to the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitray, consequently direct the respondents to restore the management of St. Joseph Junior College, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad to the petitioner society and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.VENKAT RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This petitioner had a chequered career. This is the third writ petition filed by the petitioner. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of the present writ petition are: The petitioner-society was established and registered under A.P. (T.A.) Public Societies Act, 1350 Fasli on 4.11.1970. It is a Christian minority institution. The institution was permitted to start English medium college from the academic year 1974-75. It seems the institution did not pull on well. The government took over the management of the Saint Joseph Junior College run by the petitioner-society and appointed the Collector, Hyderabad District as Special Officer. The management of the petitioner-society challenged the said proceedings by filing W.P.NO.8308 of 1985. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 8.11.1985 reserving the liberty to the petitioner-society to file an appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner-society filed an appeal, which ended in dismissal. The order passed in the appeal came to be challenged by filing W.P.No.12963 of 1985. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 21.7.1989 giving liberty to the petitioner-society to re-constitute the management of the institution after rectification of lapses and irregularities issued by the Government and there after to make a representation to the competent authority. The petitioner-society claims that it submitted representations to the government after rectifying the irregularities. Assailing the action of the respondents in not considering the representations, the petitioner-society approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not restoring the management of St.Joseph Junior College to the petitioner society and not disposing off the representation of the petitioner dated 22.6.2004 submitted to the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary, consequently direct the respondents to restore the management of St.Joseph Junior College, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad to the petitioner society and pass such further or other order as this hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” R1 to R3 filed counter affidavit. The factual aspect of the petitioner- society filing the earlier writ petitions is not disputed. IT is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner-society has not rectified the irregularities and the alleged notice dated 22.6.2004 is not addressed to the competent authority. For better appreciation I may refer the relevant para of the counter affidavit, which reads as under: “ It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner i.e. the petitioner must be given an opportunity to reconstitute the management and rectification of irregularities is possible only after restoration of the college is not correct. In fact the petitioner was already given an opportunity to restore the management vide proceedings Rc.No.4171/Junior College 5-2-1985, dated 4.6.1991, but the petitioner without any inclination for restoration of management put forward certain unwanted conditions on the Department for restoration of management. The same has been rejected by the respondents in the interest of welfare of the students, teachers and in the interest of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner contention i.e. no action is taken by the respondent right from 1989 onwards on the representation of the petitioner is not correct. As stated supra, the representation of the petitioner were considered many times and was rejected as the petitioner refused to rectify the irregularities and alleged notice 22.6.2004 was addressed to the Board of Intermediate who is not a competent authority which has not been received by this respondent who is the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner, hence the petitioner cannot state that the respondents 1 and 2 are not taking any action on the representation. The petitioner is entitled for restoration of management of the college affairs only if all the irregularities are intimated and a new managing committee is constituted and after the competent authority comes to a conclusion that the college will be run by the newly constituted committee properly. Hence, there is no illegal and in action on the part of the respondents and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.” Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner-society that its representation dated 22.6.2004 has not been considered by the respondents. I have gone through the representation dated 22.6.2004. In fact it is not a representation, but it is a legal notice issued by the petitioner-society. Be that as it may, the petitioner-society is at liberty to make fresh representation pointing out the rectifications of the irregularities made by it within one month from today. In which case, 1st and 2nd respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 23th June, 2009. ( B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.18601 OF 2004 23RD JUNE 2009.