THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6878 of 2010 Dated:09.04.2010 Between: Nethaji High School (EM). …Petitioner and The District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6878 of 2010 ORDER: Nethaji High School (English Medium), represented by its Head Master, filed the instant writ petition seeing a writ of mandamus declaring that the action of respondent No.3 in not implementing the orders of respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner is that Nethaji Educational Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is running the school with 515 pupils. The Society entered into a lease agreement dated 17.09.2005 with Allu Jayanthi for a period of fifteen years, who in turn purchased the site under registered sale deed dated 27.07.2004 from Sri Swamy Janardhan. The building is facing east with a compound wall. The lessor’s vendor, it is alleged, tried to encroach upon ten feet road on 03.11.2009 and his followers unauthorizedly constructed a Bar and Restaurant forty feet away from the school, though there is a dispute between respondent No.5, his brother, sisters and mother. In addition respondent No.5 started constructing a wall on northern side. The Head Master met the District Collector on 06.01.2010 and as advised by him, met the Tahsildar to provide pathway to the school children. As there was no response, the Head Master gave a representation on 18.01.2010 to respondent No.1 requesting to issue necessary orders to open the pathways to the school, which were closed by respondent No.5. It is alleged that the application was given in “Praja Vani” programme and the District Collector endorsed in the left margin of the representation directing Tahsildar, Rayachoty, to take necessary action, in vain. Therefore, they filed the instant writ petition. It is well settled that the note orders or Officer’s notings in the files do not confer any right nor create duties (See Puranjit Singh v Union Territory of Chandigarh[1]). Therefore, this writ petition is misconceived. Even assuming that there is an order passed by the District Collector in “Praja Vani” programme, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the District Collector again. Be that as it is, after getting instructions the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) submits that the pathway on the western side of the Nethaji School is being used by the school children without any obstruction. This only shows that the writ petition is filed without disclosing the correct facts. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.04.2010 vs [1] AIR 1994 SC 2737