← Library
Madras High CourtWP/4868/2017disposed of

The Presentation Convent v. The Government Of

2021-11-17Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 17.11.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.No.4868 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.5085 to 5087 of 2017 The Presentation Convent Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Rep by its Correspondent, Naidupuram, Kodaikanal - 624 101 Dindigul District.

...Petitioner

..Vs..

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Director of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

...Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings dated 15.12.2016 in Na.Ka.No.1455/A4/2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and directing the respondents to renew recognition from Stds. LKG to Std X and to grant permission for the upgraded Stds. XI and XII, in respect of the petitioner, Presentation Convent Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Naidupuram, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District - 624 101.

For Petitioner : Mr.Xavier Arulraj, Standing Counsel for M/s.A.Arul Mary For Respondents : Mr.V.Namaran, AGP

ORDER

The impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 15.12.2016, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. It appears that the petitioner school has been granted temporary recognition to Classes LKG to X Standard which was lapsed on 31.05.2016 and consequently, the petitioner applied for continuance of temporary recognition for the period from 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2019, which came to be returned for compliance of certain deficiencies by the Inspector of Matriculation School, Dindigul vide proceedings dated 08.03.2016, which were later complied with and resubmitted by the petitioner on 04.08.2016. However, by virtue of the impugned order dated 15.12.2016, the second respondent returned the application along with all the papers annexed to the application, on the ground that DTCP approval was not obtained to the School Building. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents produced the order copy dated 02.11.2012, whereby the CEO granted the recognition to the petitioner School but subject to the condition that petitioner shall produce DTCP approval to the respondent.

4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner school was originally accorded approval by the Kodaikanal Municipality in the year 1956 and completed the construction in the year 1960 and thereafter, the petitioner school has been obtaining Stability Certificates from time to time and the petitioner school building, being public building, was licensed by the competent authority under Section 217(c) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and the same was also conveyed to the respondents, as such, the DTCP approval is not required and without considering the same, the 2nd respondent has returned the application.

5. However, according to the respondents, the petitioner school has been granted temporary recognition as sought for, however, in order to obtain permanent recognition for upgraded standards and to run the school, the petitioner school is required to produce DTCP approval.

6. It is pertinent to note that the concept of getting concurrence from the DTCP was brought into effect only on 01.01.2011 by way of inserting Section 47-A in Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Prior to such amendment, Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Building) Rule 1977 was in force which

rule is still in existence. As per the said Rule 47-A, a consultation process was contemplated whereby the local body has to consult the DTCP before issuing a building planning approval. Admittedly, the petitioner school was a very old building and already got approval from the Kodaikanal Municipality vide its approval dated 03.09.1956. It is settled law that a statute cannot be amended with retrospective effect. Therefore, insistence of DTCP approval by virtue of amendment by way of inserting Section 47-A in Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 for extending/granting recognition to the petitioner school, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 15.12.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent are set aside.

However, safety of the students who are studying in the petitioner school and teaching personnel, is paramount consideration and admittedly the petitioner school building is very old, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the petitioner school to submit application seeking concurrence to the Directorate of Town and Country Planning within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the Directorate shall process it and pass appropriate orders thereof.

7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Pns To

1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Director of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

3. The Director of Town and Country Planning 807, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

W.P.No.4868 of 2017 SMI[co] NSK 29/12/2021