RAJENDRA MATRICULATION SCHOOL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner in W. P. No. 18086 of 1996 is the appellant herein. The appellant filed the writ petition for issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action and to prevent the 6th respondent school from being shifted or located in the premises bearing S. No. 207/3 of Selavadei Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem district. The learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition, held that as the 6th respondent is not a recognised school and it is only a nursery school, no question of taking any action by respondents 1 to 5 arises at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

(2.) There is a recognised private school situate in Doramangalam Village. The 6th respondent school, which is also a private school, is situate in Jalakandapuram village. As per the orders issued by the Director of Elementary Education the 6th respondent school cannot be shifted to the new location, without seeking permission from the authorities. Further, the 6th respondent school cannot also be located in the new location since the said place is situated hardly 100 metres from the writ petitioner's/appellant's school and such location of school within one kilo metre is prohibited in terms of the orders issued by the third respondent. The writ petitioner has not given no objection certificate to the 6th respondent to locate the school in the place chosen by the 6th respondent. In the circumstances, according to the writ petitioner, the 6th respondent school cannot be permitted to be housed in the place, which is opposite to the writ petitioner's school. The writ petitioner has been representing in this regard, but the respondents 2 and 3 have not taken any action so far. In the circumstances, respondents 2 and 3 were requested to take action against the 6th respondent and to prevent the 6th respondent from locating its school or shifting the existing school to the new location, which is situated opposite to the writ petitioner's school.

(3.) According to the appellant/writ petitioner the orders of the third respondent issued from 1994 were made it clear that no private school should be allowed to function without getting permission. Further, the orders issued by the third respondent also provide that no new school should be permitted within one kilo metre radius of an existing recognised private school, unless no objection certificate is issued by the existing school.