SANKARAMMAL Vs. P GANAPATHY CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. Her suit for declaration that the resolutions passed on 22-8-1980 and 31-8-1980 by the Uppukottai Pachayappa Educational Institutions Committee are null and void and that they do not bind the members of the Committee, and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from enforcing the said resolutions, has been dismissed on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in a civil Court because of the bar under Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulations Act, 1973. As both the Courts have dismissed the suit as not maintainable, it is not necessary for me to set out the facts in detail. Suffice it to point out that there is a dispute between the plaintiff on the one hand and the first defendant on the other, as to whether the meetings hold on 22-8-1980 and 31-8-1980 and the resolutions purported to have been passed by the Committee in these meetings are valid and in accordance with law.

(2.) Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulations Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', reads thus

(3.) It is contended before me that under Section 8 of the Act, the authorities are empowered to consider an application for transfer or change of an educational agency. Under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act, the authority shall decide whether the educational agency will continue to maintain and manage the school in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder in spite of the change and whether the transferee in cases of transfer will maintain and manage the school in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Only on such satisfaction, the authority has to approve the change or the transfer, as the case may be, subject to such conditions as it may impose. The Section has expressly restricted the authority to consider only the question that is mentioned in the Section itself. It does not permit the authority to consider other disputes which might have arisen between the parties. When the very validity of the change or transfer is called in question, it is a civil dispute and it cannot be decided by the authority by stretching the language of the sub-section to any extent. Hence, I do not accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the dispute is one which has to be decided under Section 8(2) of the Act by the educational authorities and consequently, there is a bar under Section 53 of the Act.