1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.2722 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 P.Vincent Rover ... Petitioner Vs. The District Education Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanad District. ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from concelling the petitioner's approval as a Correspondent of TELC High School, Mudukulathur made in Na.Ka.No.4707/A4/2010 dated 08.12.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja, G.A. O R D E R The Writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction from this Court to forbear the respondent / District Educational Officer, Paramakudi from cancelling the approval granted for the petitioner to continue as a Correspondent of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (herein after called as TELC) at Mudukulathur, dated 08.12.2010. 2. By the order dated 08.12.2010, the respondent informed the petitioner that he was appointed in the place of one Rajendar as the Correspondent subject to the out come of the Court cases pending in this regard. He was also informed that any appointment of new teachers relating to school can be done only after the completion of the court proceedings. He will be only in-charge as a Correspondent for the purpose of getting the grant from the State and disbursing the salary to the teachers. 3. In the meanwhile, various litigations are pending in various courts in Tamil Nadu with reference to the control over the Church and its related properties were dealt with by this Court in a Civil Revision Petition, which case came to be subsequently reported in 2011(1) CTC 395 with the caption Right Refn.Dr.H.A.Martin and another Vs. Tamil Eganchelical Church and others. This Court having found that there are number of cases pending in various courts and in order to resolve the quarrel among the members of the church and its various activities, appointed Mr.Justice J.Kanakaraj a retired Judge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of this Court as an Administrator of the church and the administrator was directed to maintain the church and other properties. 4. It is stated in the paragraph 53(d) of the order that the decision of the administrator will be binding on persons, who are subject to transfer in posting and henceforth, the supervision control of the activities will vest with the Administrator. It is also claimed that a subsequent appeal was rejected and the order of the learned Judge was confirmed. The petitioner apprehending that the new Administrator may disturb his continuance as Correspondent, had sent a letter dated 28.02.2011 to the respondent stating that the appointment of the Administrator will not in any way affect his continuance and the Administrator has not conducted any enquiry so for and therefore, no appointment should be made to remove him from the post of Correspondent of the school. In fact, the petitioner conscious of the judgment and direction issued more particularly in paragraph 53(m), wherein the members were forbidden from filing any suit or proceedings, touching upon the management or administration of TELC and the subordinate were directed to forbear from entraining any suit, has chosen to file the present Writ petition with a strange prayer. 5. First of all, the Writ petition is filed on a mere apprehension. Secondly, after the appointment of the Administrator, the entire supervision control overall the activities of the Church and the related organisation are vest with the Administrator and therefore, the petitioner cannot file such a Writ petition and trying to prevent the respondent from acting upon any direction issued by the Administrator, who is functioning in the place of the educational agency. Any direction is issued as prayed for by the Writ petitioner, will inflict with the judgment passed by this Court in the decision stated above and will create obstacle and bottleneck with the smooth running of the institution. 6. The Writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the Writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The District Education Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanad District. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.35731) +1 CC to Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, Advocate (SR.No.36394) W.P.(MD)No.2722 of 2011 13.10.2011 nbj NSV/10.11.11/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/