P LINGAM NAIDU Vs. TAHSILDAR PARVATHIPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notice issued by the Principal, Sainik School (hereinafter referred as the School) on 15-6-1967 and served on the writ petitioner forms the basis of controversy in this writ petition. The notice relates to Swami Naidu (the son of the petitioner) who studied in the School between July, 1962 to Dec. 1966. The petitioner submitted the application for his sons admission on 14-7-1962 to which were appended a declaration by the petitioner in an affidavit, a certificate issued by the Village Karnam, Katipa and another certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Parvathipuram showing the income of the petitioner as Rs.200.00 a month. These documents were relied on by the Board of Governors of the School and they awarded "A" grade scholarship to Swami Naidu. The Board of Governors further obtained a guarantee agreement on 6-4-1964 from the petitioner in the declaration as to the income was found false by the Board of Governors the petitioner will be liable and obliged to refund the excess amount received by his son. Whether there was excess amount paid to the student or not was a matter under that agreement (for which) the Board of Governors were the final arbiters. The Principal of the School in the notice served on the petitioner informed that the Tahsildar,Parvathipuram on 10-5-1967 and again on 11-12-1970 (by later on the latter date after enquiry in which the petitioner was examined on 1-6-1970 and one Govindswami Naidu on 7-7-1970) informed the income of the petitioner as in gross Rs. 9740.00 . The Board of Governors on receipt of the former letter "revised" the scholarship awarded to Swami Naidu from Grade A to Grade D and decided to collect from the petitioner the excess amount of Rs.7,555.00. In Memorandum No. 4533/B1/68-75, Education dated 1-1-1975 the Government directed the revenue department to collect the refundable scholarship as arrears of land revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and the first respondent in R.C.No.3144/35 dated 28-5-1975 instructed the Revenue Inspector to collect the amount. The writ petitioner resists the recovery in these proceedings.

(2.) The Sainik School is a residential school to train boys for various courses in armed services. The State and the Central Governments "spend huge amounts" and the school awards liberal scholarships based on "merit-cum-means" to the deserving students. The respondents in two separate counters urge that there was excess amount paid to the writ petitioner and they are entitled to realise the amount in question under S. 52 of the act as amount due to the State Government.

(3.) The counsel are agreed in these proceedings that there cannot be any determination of the question whether the petitioner has made a false declaration on 14-7-1962 and in truth and under the rules whether Swami Naidu was entitled to the Scholarship in Grade A or to the grade in D. These are disputed questions which perforce a Civil Court has to determine. The limited question at issue is whether the State Government can realise the amount decided by the Board of Governors as excess as amount due to the Government (S. 52 of the Act).