← Library
Madras High CourtWP/19850/2023disposed of

S.Nagalakshmi v. The Commissioner

2023-07-06Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice P.D.Audikesavalu5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.07.2023 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU S.Nagalakshmi : Petitioner versus 1.The Commissioner, School Education Department, DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006 2.The Director, School Education Department, DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006 3.The Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 4.The Director, Town and Country Planning, Chennai 600002 5.The Chief Educational Officer, Salem District.

6.The District Educational Officer, Salem, Salem District 7.The Block Development Officer, (Kee.Voo) Omalur, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

8.The Correspondent, Shri.Thulasivigash Metric School, Thulasampatti, Omalur Taluk, Salem District : Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate action against the eighth respondent in order to cancel the school license by considering the petitioner's representation dated 30.06.2021. For the Petitioner :

Mr.M.Elango For the Respondents :

Mr.P.Muthukumar, State Government Pleader, Assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha, Special Government Pleader, for respondents 1 to 7

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.M.Elango, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, for respondents 1 to 7.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.8 has encroached upon the poromboke land and in violation of the license issued, a school is being operated.

3. The petitioner ought to have placed on record the relevant materials for us to come to a specific conclusion. There are no documents to conclude that encroachment has been caused by respondent No.8 or a particular violation has taken place. There are no supporting documents to that effect. In the absence thereof, no direction can be granted. If at all the petitioner can lay hands on authentic documents about the deviation on the part of respondent No.8, then the petitioner may agitate in appropriate proceedings.

4. With the observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 06.07.2023 Index : yes/no : Yes/No tar

To:

1.The Commissioner, School Education Department, DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006 2.The Director, School Education Department, DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006 3.The Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 4.The Director, Town and Country Planning, Chennai 600002 5.The Chief Educational Officer, Salem District.

6.The District Educational Officer, Salem, Salem District 7.The Block Development Officer, (Kee.Voo) Omalur, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

(tar) 06.07.2023