BALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied for permission to open a High school at Kechery. Ext P-1 is the application made. THE school was sanctioned to the 3rd respondent, a newly formed society. THE society was not having any land of its own while the petitioner was having 3. 30 acres of land set apart for the starting of a High School. Due to influence exerted by the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent was given the sanction to start the new school by the 1st respondent-State. It was under the above circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court with this original petition to quash the Notification sanctioning the opening of the new High School named Al-Ameen H. S. , Kechery to the 3rd respondent. A relief by way of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's application in accordance with law is also prayed for in the original petition.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the ist respondent-State. In the counter-affidavit it is stated: The petitioner has no legal right or locus standi to challenge the final notification issued sanctioning new schools. The petitioner has not suffered any legal wrong or injury in the sense recognised by law so as to approach this Court under art. 226 of the Constitution. The 3rd respondent-society has produced necessary agreement for purchasing the required site for opening the school. The site proposed by the 3rd respondent is not near a cremation ground as alleged by the petitioner. The Government have issued directions to the effect that absolute ownership of the land need not be insisted at the time of applying for the school. The procedure prescribed in Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules has been followed in this case. The 3rd respondent-society executed an agreement with the owner of the site for purchasing the land. The school will be allowed to be opened by the 3rd respondent only after duly complying with the further formalities for starting the school.

(3.) THE petitioner in this original petition is not a busybody. He cannot be considered as a wayfarer also. He applied for sanction to open an aided school when, the 1st respondent issued a notification inviting applications for starting new aided schools. He applied in time. He fulfilled all the conditions insisted, Not only that, his application was rejected, but sanction was given to the 3rd respondent. THE 3rd respondent had no title to the land on which the school has been started or had any right to be in exclusive possession for a period of not less than six years either at the time of the application or at the time of the sanction given to him to open the school. If the 3rd respondent was not legally entitled to get the sanction, naturally the sanction has to be given to an applicant who has satisfied all the conditions insisted by the rules. THE petitioner cannot be said to be one whose legal rights are not infringed by the illegal sanction. All the expenditure tor running an aided school including salary for the teachers are met by the Government. So, by a wrong and illegal sanction it cannot be said that there is no dissipation of public funds