IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.6695 OF 2006 Dated: February 01, 2007 Between: Koduri Umadevi, W/o. Mahesh, aged 40 years, Household, R/o.9-1-255/1, Bhagathnagar, Karimnagar Town and District. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, School Education, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad, and others. … Respondents Order: This Writ Petition has been ﬁled seeking Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 3 to 5 in not taking action against the sixth respondent for cancellation of temporary recognition granted to Classes VI to X (E.M.) for the academic years 2004-06 to 2008-09 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioner claims that she is the owner of the premises bearing No.7-2-104, 7-2-105 and her husband is the owner of the premises bearing No.7-2-51, situated at Mankammathota, Ramnagar, Karimnagar town. It is stated that in the year 1991, sixth respondent approached them to lease their premises for the purpose of establishing a school and the same was leased out to it orally for 1991- 1999 with a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- and with increase of 15% thereafter. Subsequently, some constructions were made. The case of the petitioner is that since 2002, sixth respondent has not been paying rents, however, he continued to squat in the premises illegally. It is stated that for the purpose of evicting the sixth respondent from the premises of the petitioner, she ﬁled a suit in O.S.No.15 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the District Judge, Karimnagar. At the same time, sixth respondent has also ﬁled a suit in O.S.No.45 of 2005 for permanent injunction, on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, pleading interference by the petitioner, wherein status quo was granted and the same has been continuing. While things stood thus, it is stated that sixth respondent applied for extension of recognition granted earlier and also upgradation of the school for classes VI to X (E.M), and at the time of seeking such extension or recognition and upgradation, sixth respondent has enclosed a copy of the lease deed dated 02- 11-2003 alleged to have been executed by the petitioner and obtained order of extension. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she has not executed the lease deed and the sixth respondent has forged her signature on the lease deed and submitted the same to the authorities for extension of recognition. Her grievance is that though fourth respondent has initiated proceedings to withdraw the recognition, by issuing a show cause notice, however, no further steps are being taken. 4. Sixth respondent has ﬁled counter aﬃdavit stating that it has come to know of the private complaint lodged by the petitioner and registration of Cr.No.185/2005 only after it received notices in the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the District Judge, Karimnagar. It is stated that petitioner has ﬁled false criminal complaint as a counterblast after it had obtained interim orders in I.A.No.321 of 2005 in O.S.No.45 of 2005. It is further stated that when the matter is under investigation and ceased before the competent civil court and criminal court, petitioner cannot seek cancellation of recognition at this stage. To that same eﬀect is also the counter aﬃdavit filed by the fourth respondent. 5. The litigation revolves round the genuineness of the lease deed, which is alleged to have been executed by the petitioner on 02-11-2003. The case of the petitioner that the said lease deed is a forged one and she did not execute the same, whereas it is the case of the sixth respondent that the said lease deed was executed by the petitioner, basing on which extension of recognition was granted. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that there are two suits pending before the competent courts, one ﬁled by the petitioner for eviction of sixth respondent, in O.S.No.15 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the District Judge, Karimnagar, and the other ﬁled by the sixth respondent against the petitioner for permanent injunction, in O.S.No.45 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Apart from the same, the very issue is also under investigation by the Police, pursuant to a private complaint ﬁled by the petitioner, wherein she has alleged forgery of her signature by the sixth respondent. This being the state of aﬀairs, this court cannot issue any direction to the respondents to withdraw the recognition granted to the sixth respondent. Having regard to the allegations made, there are serious factual disputes, for which, the petitioner has to approach competent Civil Court for relief, which she did. When the matter is pending before the competent civil court and criminal court, this court cannot interfere and grant relief as prayed for. 6. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Nonetheless, whenever a ﬁnding is recorded by the competent court, petitioner is at liberty to bring the same to the notice of the respondent authorities, based on which, it is open for the respondents to take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. February 01, 2007 MRR