T.A.Balachandran v. The Chief Educational Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.No.2317 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.2481 of 2022 T.A.Balachandran, Founder Trustee, Yuvan Educational Trust, Noble Nursery and Primary School, 15,Venkatramier Street Kondithope, Chennai - 600 079.
.. Petitioner Vs
1. The Chief Educational Officer, Chennai District, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer, (North Chennai), District Educational Office, Sidco Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600 049.
3. The Zonal Educational Officer, Periyamet, Chennai - 600 003.
4. The Inspector of Police, C-3, Seven Wells Police Station, Chennai.
5. K.Kothandapani
6. K.Manivannan
7. Kasthurithilagam .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned notice of the first respondent
issued to the petitioner in Na.Ka.No.1746/C3/2020, dated 23.12.2021 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ma.Gouthaman For Respondents-1 to 3 : Mr.Abhishek Murthy, Government Advocate.
For Respondent-4 : Mr.TNC.Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader.
O R D E R
The first ground agitated by the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, the Chief Educational Officer, is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.
2. When the matter was taken up for admission on 14.02.2022, this Court passed the following order after hearing the contentions of the parties as under:- 'Mr.Abhishek Murthy, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R1 to R3 and Mr.TNC Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for R4 and both learned counsel seek sometime to obtain instructions and file a counter.
2. Notice to R5 through Court as well as privately, returnable 11.03.2022. Private notice on panel counsel is also permitted. Let proof of service be placed on file.
3. Mr.Abhishek, learned Government Advocate defends the impugned order stating that paragraph 2 thereof states that both sides of the dispute have been heard prior to passing thereof.
4. Prima facie, there is nothing in the opening paragraphs of the impugned order, which itself comprises only two paragraphs, that indicates that notice has gone to the petitioner and the branch of persons presently in management of the school.
5. The impugned order takes a stand opposed to that taken by the predecessor Chief Educational Officer in his order dated 31.08.2018, wherein, after a detailed consideration of the matter he has concluded that it is the petitioner and his branch of
the family that must be vested with proper authority for running of the nursery and primary school.
6. List on 11.03.2022. Counter by then after service upon the petitioner.
7. Status quo, as of now, to continue till then.'
3. In regard to the argument that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, Mr.Murthy has advanced oral submissions based upon the records, that indicate that both rival parties were heard prior to passing of the impugned order.
4. However, the order is a non-speaking order and neither does it set out reasons for the conclusions arrived at by the authorities. Thus there is some force to the grievance of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings are not seen to have followed proper procedure and are not in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
5. The petitioner draws attention to order dated 21.08.2018 that was passed by the predecessor officer, the Chief Educational Officer, pursuant to order passed in W.P.No.12571 of 2018 dated 16.05.2018 filed at the instance of one K.Sridhar, who is not arrayed as a party in this matter. He would state that a speaking order had been passed that has taken note of all relevant facts in the matter.
6. However, learned counsel for the respondents would object, stating that much water has flown under the bridge post 21.08.2018 and that there are several developments thereafter and this order would suffice to establish the proper and relevant facts. In fact, the private respondents in this writ petition filed a representation before the Authorities and approached this Court in W.P.No.34785 of 2019 seeking disposal of that representation, the petitioner being arrayed as R-4 in that matter, taking note of which the present impugned order has been passed.
7. Be that as it may, seeing as both parties agree on the position that the process of selection / admission of candidates is imminent, this Court directs both the petitioner as well as the private respondents, that is R-5 to R-7, to appear before R1 on Thursday, the 17th March 2022 at 10.30 a.m and after hearing the contentions to be advanced, including all materials to be produced by the parties, R-1 shall pass a speaking order, taking note of all contentions and setting out reasons in support of his conclusions.
8. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four
(4) weeks from 17.03.2022 i.e., on or before 18.04.2022.
9. Status quo shall continue till orders are passed by R-1.
10. With this, this writ petition stands disposed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Jeni/Svn To
1. The Chief Educational Officer, Chennai District, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer, (North Chennai), District Educational Office, Sidco Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600 049.
3. The Zonal Educational Officer, Periyamet, Chennai - 600 003.
4. The Inspector of Police, C-3, Seven Wells Police Station, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.K.M.Balaji, Advocate, S.R.No.17111 W.P.No.2317 of 2022 SPD(CO) CT 24/03/2022