Sri Saraswathi Vikas Matriculation Higher Secondary School, v. State Bank Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.Nos.31520 & 31521 of 2023 Sri Saraswati Vikas Matriculation Higher Secondary School Rep. by its Correspondent P.Ganesan No.41-A/35, Vediyappan Kovil 2nd Street Tiruvannamali 606 602 ... Petitioner Vs.
1.State Bank of India Rep. by its branch Manager Tiruvannamalai Town Branch (10665) No.1, 3rd Street Gandhi Nagar Tiruvannamalai 606 601 2.M.P.Ramachandran No.15A/18, Vediyappan Koil Street Tiruvannamalai Town Tiruvannamali 606 602.
... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned letter issued by 1st Respondent in Ref. No.:Tvm Twn/2023-24, dated13.04.2023 thereby refusing to defreeze the operation of the Bank Account No.32123924629 and to quash the same illegal, arbitrary and abuse of 1/6
power and direct the first Respondent to defreeze the operation of the said bank account within a time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Veeramani For Respondents : Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan (for R2) R1 - No representation
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned letter issued by 1st Respondent in Ref. No.:Tvm Twn/2023-24, dated13.04.2023 thereby refusing to defreeze the operation of the Bank Account No.32123924629 and to quash the same illegal, arbitrary and abuse of power and direct the first Respondent to defreeze the operation of the said bank account within a time frame.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the Managing Trustee of Jayalakshmi Ammal Educational Trust. It is running an Educational Institution by name Sri Saraswathi Vika Matriculation Higher Secondary School at No.683/1 Vettavalam Road, Thiruvannamalai. The trust was found by the petitioner and the second respondent herein was an organising trustee.
3. According to the trust deed, the decision of the majority trustees is final and if they are equally divided, the chairman of the trust will have a veto power 2/6
or acting vote. The second respondent herein started acting against the interest of the trust. A show cause notice was issued on 01.06.2022. For which, he issued a reply dated 08.06.2022.
4. The board of trustees after deliberation found that the said explanation was not satisfactory. Therefore, in the meeting held on 10.06.2022, after due notice, it was unanimously resolved to remove the second respondent from the primary position of trustee and from the office of treasurer of the school as per the decision taken by the board of trustees. A supplement deed was registered vide document No.84 of 2022 and it has become final. However, vide another supplement deed document No.85 of 2022, the second respondent's wife Rupavalli was removed. However, she made a complaint registered in FIR No.I of 2023 as if her signature in the resolution attached to the supplement deed in document No.85/2022 of hers and it is forged. In fact, there was no need for commission of forgery as the decision of majority of the trustees will prevail.
Further AB was granted and refer to the Hon'ble High Court Mediation, subsequently mediation was failed.
and the second respondent. The Bank manager acting as a puppet in the hands of the second respondent freezed the bank account. As a consequence of freezing the account that the petitioner was not capable to pay the salary to staff and to pay taxes regarding the educational trust. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent to redress his grievance. However, the first respondent has passed the present impugned order by directing the petitioner to approach the Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent has already been removed from the Trust by board resolution and supplement deed registered in document No.84/2022. It has become final. At the instance of the second respondent, the first respondent's bank should not have frozen the operation of the bank and that too without notice.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.
7. It appears that there was a property dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent. The second respondent was removed from the petitioner Trust and subsequently, he made a complaint before the first respondent and 4/6
therefore, the account has been freezed. The petitioner has come up with this petition to defreeze the account. The issue between them is purely civil dispute and the same can be resolved only before the Director of Private School Education under Section 18 of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and this Court cannot adjudicate the issue under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
8. In such view of the matter, this Court directs the petitioner and the second respondent to appear before the Director of Private School Education on 10.12.2024 and made a fresh representation along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of this order to resolve the dispute between them. The Director shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner and the second respondent.
M.DHANDAPANI.J, rli
9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 5/6
30.08.2024 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order rli To The Branch Manager State Bank of India Tiruvannamalai Town Branch (10665) No.1, 3rd Street Gandhi Nagar Tiruvannamalai 606 601 Dated: 30.08.2024 6/6