APHC010246472024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 12270/2024 Between: 1. SRI VISWABHARATHI HIGH SCHOOL, REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT SRI. GOPAVARAM RANGASWAMI REDDY GIDDALURU, PRAKASAM DISTRIET, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, TUIIUR, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COMMISSIONER, OF SCHOOL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH B-BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR, SRI ANJANEYA TOWERS NTTPS ROAD, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA-521456 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, OF SCHOOL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PRAKASAM BHAVAN, GROUND FLOOR , TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE. PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 523001. 5. THE DEPUTY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT BOYS HIGH SCHOOL MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE DEPUTY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, O/O DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE PRAKASAM BHAVAN, GROUND FLOOR, TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 523001. 7. THE DEPUTY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANDUKURU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the 3rd Respondent Regional Joint Director in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 30.05.2024 and 11-06-2024 directing the 2 Petitioner to shut down the institution from the academic year 2024-25 else face penal action basing on the complaint by some anonymous person and without examining the explanation and conducting any fresh enquiry or without verifying the doeuments to know the veracity of such complaint, as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and motivated and in contravention of Section 21 of Act 1992 and consequently set aside the same and issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of case. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend proceedings 30.05.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent Regional Joint Director, School Education and conduct re-verification of all the documents pertaining to the lease granted to the Petitioner-Institution, pending Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12270 OF 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated 30.05.2024 of 3rd respondent-Regional Joint Director of School Education and the consequential proceedings Rc.No.147/DyEO-MRKP/2024, dated 11.06.2024 of 5th respondent-Deputy Educational Officer, Markapuram Sub Division, directing the petitioner to shut down the institution from Academic Year 2024-25, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner institution is an unaided school, having primary, secondary and high school classes. In the year 2016, the petitioner obtained land admeasuring Ac.0.48 cents from two different persons (Ac.0.24 cents each), in survey No.433/3, and later, as it was found that the said persons were not having perfect title, a complaint was lodged before the authorities concerned, and it came to know that the said persons cheated the petitioner and leased out the land misrepresenting that they are the owners. It is further stated that in the year 2018, the petitioner institution entered 4 into a fresh lease agreement in respect of the neighbouring land admeasuring Ac.0.25 cents in the same survey number with the actual owner, for 10 years, which is still subsisting. The said extent of Ac.0.25 cents is sufficient to run the school and the authorities like civic, fire, police, sanitary, etc. would not have any objection to issue NOC in favour of the petitioner to run the petitioner institution. It is further stated that on earlier occasion, pursuant to a complaint, 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice on 23.03.2023 and sought explanation from petitioner, by affording one week’s time, and the same was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing W.P.No.8216 of 2023 before this Court. This Court directed the officials to afford one month’s time to the petitioner institution to furnish explanation. Pursuant to the same, 3rd respondent issued another show cause notice dated 20.04.2024, for which petitioner institution submitted explanation on 19.05.2024. Thereafter, the impugned proceedings dated 30.05.2024 was passed by 3rd respondent directing to shut down the petitioner institution and further directing 5th respondent to institute criminal proceedings against the petitioner institution and to shift the 5 students to nearby schools. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Respondent No.5 filed counter affidavit denying the material averments in the writ affidavit and stating inter alia that pursuant to complaint received from B.Purnachandra Reddy and others, 6th respondent inspected the petitioner institution and submitted enquiry report vide letter dated 11.01.2023 stating that the allegations in the complaint were true. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 23.3.2023 was issued to the petitioner to submit its explanation as to why necessary action should not be initiated to withdraw recognition and close down the school at the end of academic year 2022-23 as per G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.23, Education, dated 23.3.2006. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed W.P. No.8216 of 2023 before this Court and pursuant to the direction of this Court, 3rd respondent issued a revised show cause notice dated 20.04.2023 to the petitioner. In response thereto, petitioner submitted explanation on 19.05.2023, and at the request of the petitioner, 3rd respondent furnished certain information vide proceedings dated 07.06.2023. However, 6th respondent again instructed 6 vide proceedings dated 10.07.2023 with a request to examine explanation submitted by the petitioner to the revised show cause notice thoroughly and submit a report after conducting re-enquiry to take further necessary action. 6th respondent informed that an enquiry was conducted again and a detailed report was submitted dated 16.04.2024 to 3rd respondent. On the strength of re-enquiry report submitted by 6th respondent, 3rd respondent passed the impugned order dated 30.05.2024. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education for respondents. Perused the record. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that none of the aspects mentioned in its detailed explanation submitted to the show cause notice, has been taken into consideration by 3rd respondent in passing the impugned order dated 30.05.2024. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without verifying the genuineness of the NOCs submitted afresh by the petitioner institution, 3rd respondent passed the impugned order. 7 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law, after providing notice and opportunity to the petitioner as the allegations in the complaint received against the petitioner institution were proved, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. This Court perused the impugned order dated 30.06.2024 passed by 3rd respondent. The relevant portion of the said Order reads thus: “After careful examination of the entire matter and basing on the remarks and recommendations of the District Educational Officer, Prakasam and Deputy Educational Officer, Ongole, Prakasam and after giving sufficient time basing on the strength of the order dated 4.4.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of AP, Amaravati in WP No.8216 of 2023 and as per Rule 18 and 19 of the RTE Act, 2009 and Rule 9, 10 and 11 of G.O.Ms.No.1, Edn., dated 01.01.1994, G.O.Ms.No.23, Education, dated 23.3.2006 and subsequent orders issued by the Government from time to time thereon, the undersigned who is the competent authority is ordered to close down Sri Viswabharathi High School, Giddaluru, Prakasam District duly withdrawn the recognition from the last working day of the school during 2023-24.” 8 A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the said order has been passed in a routine and mechanical manner. Except stating that after careful examination of the entire matter and basing on remarks and recommendations of his lower authorities and the other Government Orders, 3rd respondent ordered to close down the petitioner institution and withdrew the recognition from the last working day of the school during 2023-24, none of the aspects urged by the petitioner in its explanation submitted to the show-cause notice, has been considered while passing the impugned order by 3rd respondent. 3rd respondent, being the competent authority, is expected to record its independent reasons for arriving at such a conclusion, which led to ordering closing down of the petitioner institution and withdrawal of its recognition. Right to reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial system. A party must know the reasons as to why a decision went against him. The Order dated 30.05.2024 passed by 3rd respondent is cryptic and bereft of any reasons, and none of the points raised in the explanation submitted by the petitioner has been taken into consideration by 3rd respondent. 9 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, proceedings dated 30.05.2024 of 3rd respondent and the consequential proceedings Rc.No.147/DyEO-MRKP/2024, dated 11.06.2024 of 5th respondent, are set aside. The respondent No.3 is directed to pass orders afresh in the matter in accordance with law by recording reasons basing on the explanation submitted by the petitioner and after providing opportunity to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Till such time, the petitioner is permitted to run the institution. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. ____________________________ K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J 30.7.2025 DRK 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12270 OF 2024 30.7.2025 DRK