HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 30108 OF 2010 Between: The Parents Committee of Prabbu Madhusudhan Rao Memorial Educational and Rural Development Society, Nandyal, Kurnool District ………….Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Principal Secretary to Educational Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and four others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the letter dated 26.6.2010 issued by the 5th respondent in proceeding against the Pabbu Madhusudhan Rao Memorial Educational and Rural Development Society, Nandyal, Kurnool District, as illegal and consequently direct the 5th respondent-Bank not to proceed against the petitioner Society. Brief facts of the case are that the 4th respondent- Pabbu Madhusudhan Rao Memorial Educational and Rural Development Society (for short “the Society”) has taken loan of an amount of Rs. 1,07,00,000/- from the 5th respondent-Bank and after that the Society incurred heavy losses, the Society failed to make repayment of the Bank loan dues within the prescribed period. Therefore, the 5th respondent issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002( for short ‘the SRFAESI Act”). Therefore, the petitioner herein viz., the Parents Committee of Pabbu Madhuudhan Rao Memorial Educatinal and Rural Development Society, Nandyal, Kurnool District, made a representation to the 5th respondent-Bank stating that the consequences will be reflected on students who are innocently pursuing the studies with the hope that their future will be benefited without any hurdles. The main grievance of the petitioner-Parents Committee is that the 5th respondent without considering the representation made by them has issued possession notice dated 8.3.2010 calling upon the borrower and also owner of the property to repay the amount mentioned in the notice being Rs. 1,11,35,487/- within 60 days from the date of the said notice, therefore, the said possession noticed is contrary to Section 28 of A.P. Education Act. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the entire material made available on record. This Writ Petition is misconceived inasmuch there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the 5th respondent-Bank. 4th respondent is a school being run by the private management and it owed the amount in question to the Banking Authorities due to the mortgage of the School Building. Therefore, 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 Section 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 view of the above, and also in view of the provisions of Sections 26 and 28 of the Education Act, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner-Parents Committee who is the third party to the lis have no locus standi. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J DATE: 1.12.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.