THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU WRIT PETITION No.366 OF 2006 Dated: 09-12-2010 Between: All Saints U.P Primary School (T.M. Aided), rep., by its Correspondent, D.No. 10-50-2/4, Ram Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 2 ... PETITIONER AND The Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Secretariat, A.P., Hyderabad and two others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU WRIT PETITION No. 366 OF 2006 ORDER: Petitioner, an aided upper primary institution, having opted for closure of the institution represented to the respondents in that direction way back in the year 2004 but request was inter alia objected to because of outstanding of Rs.2,02,156/- on account of excess disbursement to a teacher, namely, Smt. E.D. Hellen Jaya Kumari which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is just a pretext, for, the said dispute stands settled by judgment dated 18-06- 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 1412 of 2006 which entitles the respondents to recover the excess payment from the teacher concerned. Judgment relied upon substantiates the contention and is taken on record. Reference is also made by the learned counsel for the respondents to Section 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) to plead prohibition on the sale, mortgage, lease, pledge, charge or transfer of the school property, but reliance is misplaced because prohibition is workable in the absence of permission from the competent authority, which would mean that if competent authority permits, transfer alienation becomes permissible. So what is required is examination of the issue by the authority when alienation of property is intended which is refused because of outstanding of the amount referred above, a stance unsustainable in view of the judgment supra. Apart from that, the petitioner has not sought the transfer of the property but he has given the notice to the competent authority about his intention to close down the school. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that relevant provision for closure of the school is Section 26 and not Sections 27 and 28 of the Act. Considering the matter in totality of the circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner and if he seeks alienation also, that too shall be examined on the touchstone of statute. Needful shall be done expeditiously, at any rate within a period of three months to be reckoned from the date the petitioner presents a reminder before the competent authority. Disposed of. NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 09-12-2010 K. Shyleshi