IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22199 of 2007 Between: Anwar Urdu High School, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District (Regd No. 94/1970) Rep by its Secretary-cum-Correspondent Mohd. Tajammul Hussain ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal. 2 The District Educational Officer, Adilabad. 3 The Deputy Educational Officer, Luxettipet, Hqrs., Mancherial, Adilabad District. 4 The Director of School Education, A.P. Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting renewal to the petitioner institution for classes VI to X (Urdu Medium) for the academic years 2006-2007 to 2015-2016 under the guise of correspondence between the respondents inspite of the fact that the said proposals for renewal of recognition were already scrutinized and recommended by the competent authorities and also not receiving the nominal rolls and SSC public Examination, 2008 fee from the students of the petitioner institution is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the constitution and consequently hold that the petitioner institution is entitled for renewal of recognition for classes VI to X for the academic years 2006-2007 to 2015-2016 with all consequential beneﬁts and pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R : This Writ Petition has been ﬁled by Anwar Urdu High School, Kagaznagar, Adilabad District, with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting renewal for running Classes VI to X for the academic year 2006- 2007 to 2015-2016 to the petitioner institution as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is a registered institution under Registration No.94/1970. The petitioner institution was granted temporary recognition for running Classes I to IV during the year 1969-70 vide Rc.No.P.II/126/71, dated 23.01.1971 issued by the District Educational Oﬃcer, Adilabad-2 nd respondent. Subsequently, permission was granted for upgrading the classes from VI to X vide Proc.L.Dis.No.4539/A1/94, dated 9.11.1994. Recognition to the petitioner institution was extended from time to time. The petitioner institution submitted application for renewal of recognition for the academic year 2006-2007 to 2015-2016 for classes VI to X (Urdu Medium). The Deputy Educational Oﬃcer, Luxxettipet, Adilabad District-3rd respondent forwarded the proposals to the District Educational Oﬃcer, Adilabad-2 nd respondent along with detailed report vide letter No.A4/282/RR/2006-2007, dated 7.2.2007. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent submitted proposal to 1st respondent by letter dated 12.4.2007 recommending the case of the petitioner for renewal of recognition. Since 1st respondent has not issued any orders on the proposal forwarded by 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer stated supra. 3. Mohd.Tajammul Hussain has sworn to the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition. He claims to be the Secretary cum Correspondent of the petitioner-school. There seems to be a dispute with regard to correspondentship of the petitioner-school and ultimately W.P.No.26672 of 1996 came to be ﬁled by Mohd.Tajammul Hussain. The dispute relating to correspondentship is detailed in para 6 of the writ aﬃdavit, which reads as under: “ 6. In this connection, it is relevant to submit that in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.26672 of 1996 filed by Sri.Tajammul Hussain to continue him as Correspondent of Anwar Urdu High School, Kagaznagar the 1st respondent issued Proc.Rc.No.A4/2900/95-1, dated 22.1.1997 continuing me as Correspondent. I submit that as a Correspondent of the petitioner institution, I had submitted necessary proposals along with necessary fee for renewal of recognition for classes VI to X for the academic years 2006-07 to 20-15-16 but however no action is taken thereon under the guise of correspondence between the respondents. I submit that in fact I made a representation to the 1st respondent in Lr.No.E11/AUS/2007, dated 4.6.2007 requesting to consider our case for according renewal of recognition but however there has been no response for the same.” 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 17.10.2007. The respondents ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the petitioner-school was being granted temporary recognition from time to time by the Regional Joint Director for School Education, Warangal. It is further stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the Correspondent of the petitioner-school submitted a proposal for renewal of recognition. The Deputy Educational Oﬃcer, Luxettipet forwarded the proposal to 2 nd respondent. After receipt of the proposal, the 2nd respondent submitted the same to 1st respondent. The 1st respondent returned the proposal to 2nd respondent directing re-submission of the proposal by 3rd respondent in the capacity of Special Oﬃcer since the correspondentship of the school is in dispute. Based on the proposal submitted by 2nd respondent, extension of temporary recognition came to be accorded for the years 2006-07 to 2007- 08. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing on behalf of R1 to R4. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-school has been running since 1969-70 and as per Rule 7(1) of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1993) the competent authority shall cause veriﬁcation of receipt of an application for renewal of recognition and shall communicate the decision thereby by 31st of January and in case of refusal of permission the order shall contain the reasons. Rule 7(1) of Rules, 1993, reads as under: “ 7(1): On receipt of an application, the competent authority shall cause such veriﬁcation of the proposal as is necessary and shall communicate the decision thereof by the 31st January. In case of refusal of permission the order shall contain reasons.” He further submits that Rule 7(3) of Rules, 1993 provides that if the decision is not communicated between the period mentioned under Rule 7(1) of Rules, 1993 the permission is deemed to have been granted. In a way the learned counsel contends that since the 1st respondent has not communicated any decision on the proposal of the petitioner forwarded by 2nd respondent for renewal of recognition, it is deemed that proposal for renewal of recognition as sought for is granted. 8. Learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for R1 to R4 submits that there is a serious dispute with regard to the correspondentship of the petitioner-school and therefore the renewal of recognition has been granted for the years 2006-07 to 2007-08. A further submission has been made that the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application, in case disputes with regard to the correspondentship of the school are resolved, seeking for renewal of recognition. 9. The petitioner approached this Court complaining the proposals seeking extension of recognition forwarded by 2nd respondent has not been considered by 1st respondent. Now it is brought to my notice that the 1st respondent considered the proposal of the petitioner forwarded by 2nd respondent with regard to renewal of recognition of the petitioner-school and accorded renewal of recognition for the years 2006-07 to 2007- 08. One of the reason for not granting recognition for the period 2008-09 to 2015-16 is due to the dispute with regard to the correspondentship of the petitioner-school. In case the dispute has been resolved, the petitioner-school is at liberty to make a fresh application seeking renewal of recognition for the years 2008-09 to 2015-16 and in the event of such an application being ﬁled, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders keeping in view the interest of the students pursuing their education in the petitioner-school. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 10th September, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) cs/tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.22199 OF 2007 10TH SEPTEMBER 2008. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}