B.Chevanthirani v. The Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and W.M.P.Nos.46010 & 46013 of 2025 B.Chevanthirani D/o. D.Backiyanathan Petitioner Vs 1.The Director, Directorate of Private Schools, School Education Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.

2.The District Collector, Thiruvallur.

3.The District Educational Officer (Private Schools) Thiruvallur District.

4.The Director, Directorate of Government Examinations, Chennai - 600 006.

5.The President, Tamil Nadu Private School Fees Determination Committee, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.

6.B.Chandrasekaran Respondents 1/4

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for entire records pertaining to the order dated 22.11.2024 in Na.Ka.No. 5770/E3/2024 passed by the first respondent and quash the same consequently direct the first respondent to conduct fresh enquiry by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dhamodaran For Respondents : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader [R1 to R4] *****

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 22.11.2024 and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to conduct fresh enquiry by providing opportunity to the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr.M.Dhamodaran, learned counsel for petitioner and Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

3. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner does not 2/4

have locus standi to maintain this writ petition. The petitioner had an agreement with the sixth respondent and with that understanding, the school was run by sixth respondent. According to the petitioner, huge investment has been made by the petitioner and the sixth respondent, without the consent and concurrence of the petitioner, has conceded for the closure of the school, as a result of which, the impugned proceedings dated 22.11.2024 came to be issued by the first respondent. According to the petitioner, during the middle of the academic year, the school is now sought to be closed. Hence, the present writ petition challenging the proceedings of the first respondent has been filed.

4. As stated above, the petitioner is only an agreement holder and there is absolutely no material to show that it was the petitioner, who was running the school. In the official records also, only the name of the sixth respondent is shown. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the sixth respondent, the petitioner has to proceed against the sixth respondent. Without doing so, the petitioner does not have locus standi to question the proceedings of the first respondent. Hence, it is left open to the petitioner to work out his remedy as against the N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

3/4

gm sixth respondent and thereafter, approach the educational authorities if the petitioner succeeds against the sixth respondent. Except giving this clarity, no further orders can be passed in this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 30.10.2025 Index:yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order gm To 1.The Director, Directorate of Private Schools, School Education Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006. 2.The District Collector, Thiruvallur.

3.The District Educational Officer (Private Schools) Thiruvallur District.

4.The Director, Directorate of Government Examinations, Chennai - 600 006.

4/4