The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.13965 of 2009 Dated 27th July, 2010 Between: M/s.Siddartha Educational Society …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh and 4 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Venkateswara Rao Gudapati Counsel for the respondents: AGP for School Education The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in appointing a Committee for public enquiry and proceedings, dated 20-06-2009 and 09-07-2009, issued by respondent No.5, requiring the members and staff of the petitioner-Society to appear before the said Committee on 22-06-2009 and 14-07- 2009, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. I have heard Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education representing the respondents. The petitioner is an educational society running certain educational institutions. One such educational institution is a school being run in the name of Quest. It appears two of the students studying in the said school by names Panduranga Deepesh and Puppala Durga Pavan have died at different times for different reasons. Certain measures for withdrawal of recognition and other similar actions were taken by the respondents with which this Writ Petition is not concerned. However, the petitioner felt aggrieved by notice, dated 20-06-2009, issued by respondent No.5, wherein it is mentioned that on the representation made by the parents of Panduranga Deepesh and Puppala Durga Pavan, respondent No.3 vide his proceedings, dated 11-06-2009, constituted a Committee comprising Sri R.Prabhakar Rao, Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, Father Moses, Social Service Organisation, Eluru, and Sri P.Srinivas, District Educational Officer, West Godavari District, Eluru, for holding a public enquiry and the members of the Management Committee of the petitioner were called upon to be present at such enquiry to be held at 10 a.m., on 22-06-2009. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in tune with the plea raised by his client in the Writ Petition, submitted that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to constitute a Committee for conducting a public enquiry and therefore, the notice issued by respondent No.5 is wholly without jurisdiction. The leaned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education sought to defend the said action of respondent Nos.3 and 5 by placing reliance on Section 24 (3) (a) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’). I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. Since the respondents have placed reliance on Section 24 (3) (a) of the Act, it is useful to reproduce the same herein below to the extent it is relevant: Sec.24. Appointment and removal of manager of private institution:- (3) (a) Where the competent authority is satisfied that the management is responsible for the lapses or irregularities of the institution, the competent authority may, after giving to such management an opportunity to make representation and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the management and appoint a special officer till the reconstitution of the management.” The above extracted provision, envisages that if the competent authority is satisfied that the Management is responsible for lapses or irregularities of the institution, it may, after giving an opportunity of making representation to the management, pass an order in writing suspending the management and appointing a special officer till reconstitution of the Management. This provision does not authorise the competent authority to delegate its power to any other authority for holding an enquiry. Except the above provision, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has not pointed out any other statutory provision either under the Act or under the Rules made thereunder empowering the competent authority to constitute a Committee as has been done in the present case. As such, in my firm opinion, respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to constitute the Committee and consequently, it was not obligatory for the petitioner to appear before such a Committee in pursuance of the impugned notice issued by respondent No.5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. This order however does not prevent the competent authority from taking appropriate action in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WVMP.No.233 of 2010 in WPMP.No.18282 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 27th July, 2010 lur