GOVT. URDU PRIMARY SCHOOL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 7 to consider his representation dtd. 2/3/2020 vide Annexure-K and allow the petitioner to construct school front gate and compound wall behind the school in toilet area.

(2.) The petitioner is Government Urdu Primary School represented by its President, School Development Monitoring Committee, running a school situated at Bukkasagar village in Sy.No.526, wherein around 65 students both boys and girls are studying in the school. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that there is a bridge and also a canal flowing behind the school and he has filed a representation to the respondents for construction of school gate and compound wall to protect the safety and security of the children attending the school. He also contends that the Government has sanctioned funds for construction of compound wall and front gate to the school under the scheme of 'Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee'. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has begun the construction work to put up the school gate and compound wall, due to some persons raising objections on the said work, work came to be stalled, due to which reason he proposed to make an application to the respondents to put up the front gate and construction of compound wall. It is submitted that a letter was sent by respondent No.7 on 8/2/2022 on the basis of farmers making objections for installing the gate and putting up the compound. However, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 7 contends that the Panchayat Development Officer of the Gramapanchayat on the basis of objections made by the farmers, has communicated same to the President of Gram Panchayat. However, the fact remains that the school is a Government Urdu Primary School. A representation is made by the petitioner for construction of the front gate and the compound wall. Same has not been considered. However, the contention of learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 7 that the representation made by the petitioner is to the 1st respondent rather than making it to respondent Nos.3 and 5. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 7 that despite mentioning of copy being served in Annexure-D to the respective respondents namely other concerned respondents i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 5, same is not received and no representation is addressed to the 1st respondent/Deputy Commissioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 7 contends that though there is a mention in Annexure-D with regard to service of copy of representation, same has not been furnished to the respondents and no acknowledgment also placed before the Court for having served copy of the said representation to respondent Nos.3, 5 and 7. Be that as it may, the grounds raised by the respondents is technical in nature, hence I pass the following :