THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU WRIT PETITION No.6688 OF 2006 Dated: 20-08-2010 Between: G. Hanmantha Rao ... PETITIONERS AND District Educational Officer, Adilabad and two others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU WRIT PETITION No.6688 OF 2006 ORDER: By direction dated 15-04-2010, the matter was adjourned with a direction to the respondents to produce the entire record relating to the construction of the school. To avoid repetition of facts and to understand the controversy, it will be appropriate to reproduce the said direction: “The land and building of one Smt. G. Andal Devi came to the possession and occupation of the respondents after having been donated by the proprietor to house a primary school. The school was upgraded, therefore need for reconstruction of the building which was followed by process of changing the name of the school but stalled because of the ad interim direction passed in the writ petition on hand. The petition is founded on Government Order, G.O.Ms.No.162, dt. 14.11.2004 which empowers the local bodies and private management schools’ to name the institutions after the donor inter alia subject to the condition that 25% of the estimated cost is paid by the donor. The condition so stipulated, according to the respondents, was not fulfilled by the petitioner, therefore, not in agreement to allow the school to be named after the donor. To substantiate the contention, it is averred by the respondents in the counter affidavit that a cheque of Rs.60,000/- was deposited by the petitioner but the same was dishonoured by the bank on its presentation. The facts so urged are not denied by the petitioner, however, he contends that he had supplied the material to the Roads and Buildings Department. What material was supplied, no details are given in the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a million dollar question whether the court should embark upon the factual aspects, but the evasive reply of the respondents still calls for answer from the respondents, particularly in view of the averment detailed at page-4 of the counter affidavit wherein they have denied the knowledge as to whether the petitioner had spent or not any amount for the construction of the reconstructed school building. Situated thus, there shall be a direction to the learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents to produce the entire record relevant to the construction of the school. Be listed next week, if this bench is available singly.” As is seen from the order reproduced, the question that arises is whether contribution has been made by the petitioner or not. Record reveals that no amount has been paid by the petitioner, therefore, he has not right to prevent the respondents from changing the name of the school. Dismissed. NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 20-08-2010 K. Shyleshi