IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14749 of 2008 Between: 1 Boda Bixam S/o Bikya R/o Plot No.16 Srinivas Nagar colony, Dr. A.S. Ao Nagar, ECIL,Kapra, R.R. District. 2 Banoth Suman S/o late B. Raju being minor rep by his next friend and guardian Boda Bixam S/o Bikya, aged about 23 years Occ; Private Service, R/o Plot No. 16, Srinvias Nagar Colony, Dr. A.S. Rao Nagar ECIL., Kapra, R.R. District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of A.P., rep byits Principal Secretary, Secondary School Education, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Hyderabd Public School, Board of Governors, rep by its Chairman, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 3 The Principal, Hyderabad Public School Begumpet, 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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein in not permitting the 2nd petitioner to the school Boarding and proposing to remove him from the school without giving an opportunity of being heard, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Clauses (a)(b) and (c) of Article 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India, in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.KUMAR BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 14749 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by petitioners who are two in number with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Mandamus declaring the action of the Hyderabad Public School, Board of Governors, represented by its Chairman, Begumpet, Hyderabad - second respondent and the Principal, Hyderabad Public School, Begumpet, Hyderabad- third respondent in not permitting the 2nd petitioner to the School Boarding and proposing to remove him from the school without giving any opportunity of being heard, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Clauses (a) (b) and (c) of Article 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The second petitioner is student of X class studying in Hyderabad Public School, Begumpet. He found guilty for the offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 70-B of C.P. Act in connection with S.T.C. No.4 of 2008. A fine of Rs.150/- was imposed on him by the court of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 03-06-2008. The petitioners are apprehending removal of the second petitioner from the school as well as from the hostel by respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, they approached this court invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer stated supra. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 09-07-2008. 4 . An order of status quo has been granted on 09-07-2008 with regard to continuance of the second petitioner in the second respondent school. 5. Respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance through a counsel. They filed WVMP No.2593 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 09-07-2008 passed in W.P. No.14749 of 2008. One Alokesh Sen has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the second petitioner joined the school in the year 1999 vide Admission No. 695/99. He along with three others left the school campus on 3rd April,2008 unauthorisedly and went to Rasoolpura hostel and attacked the inmates of Social Welfare Hostel.Two students staying at the hostel were beaten by the second petitioner and others. The watchman of the said hostel and the victims came to the office of the School and lodged a complaint. The parents of the victims also lodged a police complaint with Begumpet Police Station. The Police apprehended the erring students including the second petitioner and produced them in the court of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. The case was tried by the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate and a fine of Rs.150/- was imposed on the second petitioner. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that no decision has been taken till date to remove the second petitioner from the school. As a temporary measure, he was asked to move out from the hostel till the final decision is taken. Proper procedure under law would be followed at an appropriate time. 6. When the vacate petition came for consideration, with the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition itself has taken up for disposal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondents 2 and 3 are not permitting the second petitioner to stay in the hostel and thereby depriving the second petitioner of his valuable right to pursue education. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of the Patna High Court in Bhuvaneshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar and others. Much emphasis has been laid in Para 19 of the judgment and it reads as hereunder: “ In that view of the matter, it is clear that when petitioner has approached this Court against a threatened demolition of his residential house, it can be said to be a threat to his fundamental right to life under Art.21 of the Constitution. When one’s fundamental right is threatened, the person concerned can approach a Court of law and need not wait till such threat is translated into reality. This is the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of D.A.V. College, Bhatinda v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1971 SC 1731. In paragraph 5, page 1733, the Court held: “that a petition under Art. 32 in which petitioners make out a prima facie case that their fundamental rights are either threatened or violated will be entertained by this Court and that it is not necessary for any person who considers himself to be aggrieved to wait till the actual threat has taken place.” 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that no final decision has been taken with regard to either removing name of the second petitioner from the rolls of the school or removing him from the hostel permanently. The decision taken by respondents 2 and 3 to keep the second petitioner away from the hostel is only a temporary one and a final decision is yet to be taken. A status-quo order has already been granted on 09-07-2008 with regard to continuance of the second petitioner on the rolls of the second respondent school. The counter affidavit does not indicate that the second petitioner has been removed from the rolls of the school. Therefore, the second petitioner continues to be the student of the school of the second respondent in which case respondents 2 and 3 cannot prevent him from attending the school. With regard to boarding, it is stated by respondents 2 and 3 in the counter affidavit that the second petitioner has been made to stay away from the hostel only as a temporary measure and final decision has not yet been taken. It is specifically asserted in the counter that the final decision will be taken in accordance with the law. 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to follow the due process of law in the event the second petitioner is required to be removed from the rolls of the school or from the boarding, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 19-08-2008 Note: C.C. in three days. B/o. Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}