THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO:25544 OF 2010 DATED:8.10.2010 Between: N.Madhusudhan and others .....PETITIONERS AND The State of A.P rep by its Secretary, Dept of School Education Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. .....RESPONDENTS This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO:25544 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meenakumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 in issuing a sale cum tender public auction notice dated 16.9.2010 to sell the entire property of the 5th respondent on 11.10.2010, without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority and also in proposing to sell the entire property of the 5th respondent, instead of selling one portion of the property in order to realize the due amount, as illegal and arbitrary; and to direct respondents 3 and 4 not to sell the entire property of the 5th respondent through the auction to be held on 11.10.2010 without obtaining any prior permission from the competitive authority i.e., 2nd respondent or in the alternative direct respondents 3 and 4 to sell one portion of the buildings of the 5th respondent in order to realize the outstanding loan amount leaving the rest of the three buildings for normal functioning of the school that too, after obtaining permission from the competent authority. The brief facts of the case leading to file the present writ petition are that the petitioners have admitted their children into the 5th respondent- school in which two children of the 1st petitioner are studying 3rd and 2nd Class, son of the 2nd petitioner is studying 9th class and the children of the 3rd petitioner are studying 5th and 1st Class. The 2nd respondent has granted permission and recognition to the 5th respondent-school in the year 1996. It appears that the 5th respondent had mortgaged the school properties to respondents 3 and 4 and obtained a loan to a tune of Rs.7.5 crores during 2005-2006 without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority and thereafter, the 5th respondent appears to have paid 8 crores to the Bank and still, an amount of Rs.1,96,61,386/- is outstanding to the Bank. Now, Respondents-3 and 4-Bank authorities initiated proceedings under section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of the amounts and the 4th respondent had also issued a sale notice through tender and public auction dated 16.9.2010 and the date of auction is scheduled to be held on 11.10.2010 at 2.30 P.M. Thus, because of mortgage of the school building in question, much inconvenience and hardship is being caused to the students and the parents. Hence, the writ petition is filed by the petitioners. Heard. Perused the material available on record. Before going into the merits of the case, it is to be noted that the petitioners who have filed the writ petition challenging the sale notice, are the third parties. The 5th respondent is a school being run by the Private management. The 5th respondent owed the amount in question to the Banking Authorities due to the mortgage of the school building. In view of the nature of the dispute in question, it cannot be construed as that of public interest litigation. Apart from that, there is no dispute as to the provisions of Sections 26 and 28 of the Education Act, under which before going to alienate, sale, mortgage, lease, pledge and charge or transfer of possession of a private Institution, there should be prior permission from the competent authority. In the light of these provisions, it is for the competent authority to consider the said aspect in case of violation of the provisions of Sections 26 and 28 of the Act. In this view of the matter and in view of the provisions of sections 26 and 28 of the Act, we feel that the petitioners who are the third parties to the lis have no locus standi. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meenakumari ________________________ Justice G.V.Seethapathy Date:8.10.2010. nn. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO:25544 OF 2010 (Order of the Division Bench delivered by Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari) DATED:8.10.2010