P.S.T.S. CHARITIES Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No.13724 of 2004 is filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in A6/336/1996, dated 06.04.2004 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same and direct the third respondent to renew the lease as per Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Procedure for Conducting Public Auction of Leases and Sales in the Panchayats) Rules, 2001.

(2.) Writ Petition No.10005 of 2004 is filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in A7/336/96, dated 06.03.2004 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same and direct the third respondent to renew the lease as per Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Procedure for conducting Public Auction of Leases and Sales in Panchayats) Rules, 2001.

(3.) The case of the petitioner-Charities (Foundation) is that they are running educational institutions imparting education to children and that they have been periodically paying the lease/rental amount. There was a lease agreement entered into in 1999 for a period of two years and subsequently renewed, but it has not been extended. It is further submitted that in terms of the lease agreement, the lease period could be extended for a period of three years, which has not been done in the present case. It is further submitted that there are no arrears of lease/rental amount payable to the third respondent and that the entire arrears of rent have been paid. But unfortunately, for the best reasons known to the respondents, they are trying to extort more money from the petitioner by contending that the lease period has not been extended. It is further stated that it is for the State to provide education to the children, more particularly the children aged between 5 and 14 and that since that has not been done by the State, the petitioner-Charities had taken the responsibility of imparting education to the children and that in terms of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, the State Government is bound to provide free education to minor children who are aged between 5 and 14. It is further stated that by means of the impugned orders, the petitioner has been asked to vacate the premises on the ground that the lease period has already been over and there are arrears payable to the respondents to an extent of Rs. 1,53,000/- and that the third respondent relied on G.O.Ms.No.277, Rural Development Department, dated 22.11.2001, and further stated that additional sum of 15% has got to be paid as lease amount over and above the amount being paid and the petitioner was to pay lease rent in a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month and that has not been considered and by the impugned orders, the premises was directed to be vacated, which are challenged in the present Writ Petitions.