IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19095 of 2001 Between: The Royal Steno Type Institute Rep By Its Proprietor Ln.S.P. Raju Samarangam Chowk, Vijayawada-520 001. ..... PETITIONER AND Commissioner of Technical Education Hyderabad-500 063, Andhra Pradesh. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (1) declaring that the notification No.12/19071/2001 dt.2.8.2001 issued by the respondent in so far as directing all the permanently recognised typewriting institutes to pay recognition fee of Rs.200-00 as illegal and without jurisdiction and (2) direct the respondents herein to grant permanent recognition to all institutes which are existing or established after 1990-91 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 19095 OF 2001 ORDER 1. The petitioner is a proprietary concern. The petitioner institution has a permanent recognition for the purpose of coaching and sponsoring candidates for the Technical Examination in Typewriting and shorthand conducted by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, A.P. Hyderabad. The respondent issued a notification, dated 2-8-2001 directing the institutions who have permanent recognition to pay the yearly recognition fee. This notification is challenged in the writ petition. Para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition needs to be noted and it is thus:- “It is submitted that in view of the permanent recognition accorded to some of the institutes, no recognition fee is being collected since last decade. Surprisingly, under the impugned notification, now the respondent has directed all the permanently recognized institutes also to pay the recognition fee by 30th August, 2001. The said notification in so far as directing to pay recognition fee by the permanently recognized institutes are concerned is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. As stated above. While issuing the notification in the year 1990-91 the respondent has made it clear that no recognition fee is payable with respect to the institutes which are being accorded permanent recognition. Neither the education act nor any other rule empowers the respondent to collect recognition fee from the institutes which have already obtained permanent recognition. When the petitioner made a representation to the respondent, he was informed that they are granting block recognition for two years on experimental basis as they have received several complaints to the effect that permanently recognized institutes are indulging in various mal practices like impersonation, sponsoring of candidates of unrecognized institutes to the examination conducted by State Board of Technical Education and Training. I submit that the reason given by the respondent for introducing block period of two years is solely unjustifiable. In any event, the respondent has not cancelled the permanent recognition to the institutes and introduced block period recognition of two years to all the institutes. Therefore, the same has no application. The notification do not say that any such block period recognition is introduced for other institutes which have obtained permanent recognition. Therefore payment of recognition fee is applicable only for the temporarily recognized institutes and by any stretch of imagination it cannot be extended to permanently recognized institutes”. 2. The respondent filed counter inter alia contending that S.P. Raju has not obtained permanent recognition in the name of the petitioner institution and it is one S.Krishna Murthy, who has obtained permanent recognition as proprietor of Royal Steno Type Institute. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the policy of giving permanent recognition has been revised in view of large number of malpractices committed by the institution, who have permanent recognition. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the State Board of Technical Education and Training is according affiliation to the institute imparting training in Computer course by charging fee of Rs.5,000/- towards affiliation. However, in respect of typewriting institute, a concession of Rs.2,000/- was given they are required to pay Rs.3,000/- towards affiliation to their institute, as an Act to encourage them. If the recognition is not granted they are not entitled to concession and they have to pay Rs.5,000/- on par with other institution. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s institution has permanent recognition and therefore, it is not obliged to pay annual recognition fee once again as directed in the notification, dated 2-8-2001. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Technical Education submits that the Government has revised the policy of granting permanent recognition and choose to grant block period recognition keeping in view of large scale malpractices resorted to by the institutes who have permanent recognition and being a policy matter, the petitioner cannot question the same. A further submission has been made that Royal Steno Type Institute is a proprietary concern and whenever a change in the proprietorship of the institute, the person who acquired the proprietorship of the institute has to necessarily seek renewal of recognition. 6. Indisputably, one S.Krishna Murthy secured permanent recognition to the Royal Steno Type Institute, Sambavaram Chouk, Vijayawada as its Proprietor. The recognition goes with the person who runs the institute since the proprietor of the institute should have passed English or Telugu typewriting in Higher Grade. Once there is a change of proprietorship in the petitioner institution, the person who acquires the petitioner institution has to necessarily seek renewal of recognition. As on this day no material has been placed to show that S.P. Raju who filed the writ petition on behalf of the Royal Steno Type Institute got recognition from the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Hyderabad. Such being the situation, the petitioner cannot assail the notification, dated 2-8-2001. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 11th June, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 19095 OF 2001 11th June, 2009.