The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.16597 of 2007 Dated 2nd July, 2010 Between: Brilliant High School …Petitioner And The Director of Government Examinations, Secondary School Education, Nampally, Hyderabad and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.V.Ramchander Goud Counsel for the respondents: AGP for School Education The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1, in levying late fee penalty vide proceedings, dated 13-03-2007, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri V.Ramachander Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education representing the respondents. The petitioner is a school, running classes up to X. Prior to July, 2006, the petitioner was under the jurisdiction of the District Educational Officer, Ranga Reddy, and by proceedings, dated 26-07-2006, the jurisdiction was changed to the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad District. On 02-11-2006, the petitioner applied to respondent No.4 for forwarding nominal rolls of its students, numbering 41, for appearing in the examinations scheduled to be held in March, 2007. Along with the said application, the petitioner has enclosed challan particulars, examination fees and other relevant documents such as nominal rolls, ICR forms etc. As per the notification issued in this regard, the last date for payment of fees along with nominal rolls and ICR forms without penalty was 05-01-2007 and with penalty it was 20-02-2007. On the ground that the petitioner did not submit its application before 05-01-2007, the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.1 levying late fees of Rs.49,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- per candidate and permitting the petitioner to remit this amount in three instalments before taking delivery of the SSC pass Certificates. Questioning this order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. It will suffice to note from the averments contained therein that the main reason for levying the said penalty was that as on the date of remittance of examination fees or on the due date of submission of ICR forms, manuscript, nominal rolls etc., the petitioner was not accorded extension of temporary recognition from the academic year 2006-07 and that it was able to get the extension of temporary recognition on 26-02-2007 only. It was also stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has not submitted manuscript, nominal rolls, ICRs before, as he has not obtained either under process Certificate from the Regional Joint Director Education or the order according extension of recognition from the academic year 2006-07 prior to 26-02-2007. On the direction of this Court, record has been produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education. A perusal of the record clearly reveals that the petitioner was granted provisional recognition for classes from VIII to X (E.M.-UA) for the years 2001-02 to 2005-06 vide letter, dated 26-11-2002, of respondent No.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner applied for extension of temporary recognition from the academic year 2006-07 and it was accordingly given such recognition by proceedings, dated 26-02-2007, of respondent No.3 for the academic years 2005-06 to 2014- 15. A perusal of the record further reveals that as far back as 02-11-2006, the petitioner has applied to the Deputy Educational Officer, Hyderabad District, for permission to its students, numbering 41, to appear in the examinations by paying the requisite amount through challan and enclosing documents such as copy of N.R. (Original), ICR Forms, Recognition Orders, Permission Orders, Challan, Statement showing candidates appearing subject wise etc. One of the enclosures includes an “under process certificate” showing that the proposal for extension of temporary recognition beyond the academic year 2005-06 year is under process with the office of respondent No.3. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education has advanced an argument, which this Court finds strange and amusing, that no doubt the said under process certificate is found in the record as the first of the documents immediately after the covering letter of the petitioner, but in the letter enclosing these documents, the petitioner has not specifically referred to this under process certificate and therefore, the petitioner’s application was treated as the one filed without the said under process certificate and was not treated to have been filed within the time. In my opinion, this approach of respondent No.1 is wholly unreasonable. In its application, the petitioner has shown that it has enclosed along with other documents ‘recognition orders’ and ‘permission orders’. Even though it may not have specifically referred to the under process certificate, as the record clearly indicates that it was the very first document enclosed to the petitioner’s application, there was no scope for respondent No.1 to overlook the said document and treat the petitioner’s application as the one filed without such a certificate. The conduct of respondent No.1 is, therefore, absolutely unreasonable, arbitrary, unsustainable and a fortiori the imposition of penalty on such a non-existent reason cannot be sustained in law. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education conceded that this was the only ground on which the penalty was imposed. As this ground is nonest, imposition of penalty on the petitioner is illegal and highly arbitrary. The impugned order, dated 13-03-2007, passed by respondent No.1, is set aside and the Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Respondent No.1 is saddled with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for passing such a patently arbitrary order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 2nd July, 2010 lur