THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.8508 and 20145 of 2009 DATED:14.10.2009 Between: Islamia Education Society, And another. …Petitioners And The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.8508 and 20145 of 2009 ORDER: As the controversy in both the writ petitions is in relation to an Education Society, it is necessary to dispose of the two cases by a common order. W.P.No.8508 of 2009 is filed by Islamia Education Society, represented by its Secretary, Mohd.Hamid Ali (hereafter referred to as, IES(M)), seeking a direction to the respondents therein, namely, Government of Andhra Pradesh, District Collector, Hyderabad, and Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad, to handover the management of the Islamia High Schools for Boys and Girls situated at Secunderabad to IES(M). The other writ petition is filed by one Hafiz Mohd. Mastan Ali, statedly, Urdu Pandit, working in Islamia High Schools, against Government of Andhra Pradesh, District Collector, Hyderabad, Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad, District Educational Officer, Hyderabad, and Islamiah Education Society, represented by its President Zafar Javeed (hereafter referred to as IES(Z)), seeking a direction to the respondents to take a decision in the matter of management of the Islamiah High Schools after hearing all the concerned parties and for a declaration of the memo of the Government dated 10.09.2009 as illegal and arbitrary. The brief fact of the matter necessary to dispose of these writ petitions is as follows. Islamia Education Society established schools in 1882. A formal society with a similar name was registered in 1984, which appears to be managing the schools through duly constituted managing committee. It appears, in 2006, IES(M) was also registered with similar name. Aggrieved by the same, IES(Z) preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and Registrar General of the Societies, who rejected the appeal, against which, IES(Z) filed W.P.No.9754 of 2008. Be that as it is, disputes arose between the two rival societies, one represented by Zafar Javeed and another represented by Mohd.Hamid Ali, each society blaming the other for mismanagement and maladministration of the schools having will over thousands of pupils. It is, however, not necessary to go into these allegations traded between these two societies. In 2006, on complaints made by some of the teachers, the District Collector, who is competent authority for the purpose of Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (Education Act, for brevity), ordered enquiry into the affairs and the management of the schools, and after receiving enquiry report, by proceedings dated 20.09.2007 appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad, as Special Officer for the management of schools. Some of the persons belonging to IES(Z) preferred an appeal to the Government. By order dated 21.02.2009, they set aside the order of the District Collector appointing Revenue Divisional Officer as Special Officer and they remitted the matter to the District Collector for fresh enquiry. The petitioner in W.P.No.8508 of 2009, therefore, contends that as it is the new management, the respondents are bound to handover the management to them under Section 24(3)(a) of the Education Act. They, therefore, made a representation to the first respondent on 23.01.2009 without any response. Hence, W.P.No.8508 of 2009 (hereafter called, first writ petition) is filed. Pending the first writ petition, it appears, IES(Z) again approached the Government of Andhra Pradesh by making a representation on 25.08.2009 complaining about non-implementation of the orders of the Government Memo No.18755/PS.I/A1/2007, dated 21.02.2009. In response thereto, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued another order, being Memo No.15999/PS.I/A1/2009, dated 10.09.2009, directing the Commissioner and Director of School Education to implement their orders, dated 21.02.2009. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.20145 of 2009 (hereafter called, second writ petition) is filed seeking an enquiry as earlier ordered by the Government. When the second writ petition was listed before this Court on 06.10.2009, having regard to the fact that there are more than one writ petitions touching upon the same subject matter, all the cases were directed to be listed together, and the learned Government Pleader was also directed to file a counter affidavit. A counter affidavit is filed by the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad, in W.P.No.20145 of 2009. In her counter affidavit the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad, states as follows. Against the orders of the District Collector dated 20.09.2007 appointing Revenue Divisional Officer as Special Officer, Zafar Javeed and another approached this Court and filed W.P.No.26246 of 2008. This Court disposed of the same by directing the Government to dispose of the revision filed under Section 90 of the Education Act within four weeks. The Government by order dated 21.02.2009 set aside the order of the District Collector with a further direction to handover the management to IES(Z). The said order was not implemented because another society of the same name with Registration No.485/2006 filed W.P.No.8508 of 2009. IES(Z) also filed W.P.No.9754 of 2008 and both the writ petitions were pending. This Court heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Education as well as learned Counsel for IES(Z). The orders passed by the Government on 21.02.2009 and 10.09.2009 are annexed to the counter affidavit. These two orders bring out the genesis of the dispute and the decision of the Government to order a fresh enquiry after affording opportunity to both the managements. Learned Government Pleader submits that the District Collector requires four weeks time to complete the enquiry as ordered by the Government in their memo dated 21.02.2009. Insofar as the subsequent memo of the Government dated 10.09.2009 is concerned, the learned Government Pleader submits that the management has been handed over the managing committee headed by Zafar Javeed, fifth respondent in W.P.No.20145 of 2009. Now that the Government set aside the order of the Collector appointing Revenue Divisional Officer as Special Officer, there cannot be any objection for the District Collector appointing the same Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct enquiry. Therefore, it would be in the fitness of things if the enquiry is conducted by the District Collector or his delegatee, be it Revenue Divisional Officer or other Officer, and a report be submitted to the Government through the District Collector within a period of four weeks. Thereupon, the Government may take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law. The Writ Petitions, with the above observations and directions, are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 14.10.2009 vs