APHC010310032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 15570/2025 Between: 1. K RAMA CHARAN TEJA, IX CLASS, AGED 14 YEARS, MINOR. REP. BY HIS MOTHER K.VAMAKSHI W/O APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.28-13-3/1 PARK, GOVT. HOSPITAL, VADLAPUDI, VISAKHAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP. BEHINDNTR 2. TEPPALA SHANMUKH,, VI CLASS, AGED 11 YEARS, MINOR. REP. BY HIS MOTHER T.V.K.KUMARI W/O T.RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.6-195, DALLAIPALEM, VADACHIPURAPALLI WEST, NTPC, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP. 3. L.JITHENDRA SAI SANTHOSH,, IX CLASS, AGED 14 YEARS, MINOR. REP. BY HIS MOTHER L.DURGA BHAVANI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.30-82-1/13, TIRUMALA NAGAR. NEAR SHIVALAYAM, RH COLONY, VADLAPUDI, DUVVADA ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP. 4. ANAPARTHI BHAVYA SRI,, VII CLASS, AGED 11 YEARS, MINOR, REP. BY HER FATHER A.RAMU S/O SANYASI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.30-84-26/4, VADLAPUDI, KANITHI RH.COLONY, TELUKULA VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP. 2 SRK,J W.P.No.15570 of 2025 5. VULSE SAI HIRANYA,, VIII CLASS, AGED 13 YEARS, MINOR. REP. BY HER MOTHER RADHA DEVI W/O V.RAMANA BABU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O ROOM NO.2, QUARTER NO.303, SECTOR NO.4, STEEL PLANT, MAKAVARAPU PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP. 6. PANCHADARLA TEJASVI,, V CLASS, AGED 10 YEARS, MINOR, REP. BY HER FATHER P.CHINNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O SECTOR.2, BLOCK NO.343, H.NO.C, STEEL PLANT, MAKAVARAPU PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP. 7. E.RISHIKUMAR,, IX CLASS, AGED 14 YEARS, MINOR. REP. BY HIS MOTHER E.DHANALAKSHMI W/O VENKU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.3-127/20, AGANAMPUDI, GALAVANNA PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP. 8. DEVANSHIKA,, III CLASS, AGED 8 YEARS, MINOR. REP. BY HER MOTHER B.SARASWATHI W/O TEJESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.301, DEVADATTA SAI RESIDENCY, 3RD FLOOR. ROAD NO.1, JABILI HILLS, SANIVADA, AGANAMPUDI, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. RASTREEYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED, THE VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN VISAKHAPATNAM, STATE OF AP. 3. THE DIOCESE OF VIZAKHAPATNAM SOCIETY ARCHIBISHOP, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND TREASURER. AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOUSE, MAHARANIPET 3 SRK,J W.P.No.15570 of 2025 4. THE CORRESPPONDENT, VISAKHA VIMALA VIDYALAYA, UKKU NAGARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, AP. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, B.BLOCK, VTPS ROAD, BHEEMARAJU GUTTA, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT, AP. 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VUDA BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR, NEAR HSBC BANK, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530003. 7. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, AP. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AT MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530002. 8. AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOUSE, MAHARANIPET 3 SRK,J W.P.No.15570 of 2025 4. THE CORRESPPONDENT, VISAKHA VIMALA VIDYALAYA, UKKU NAGARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, AP. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, B.BLOCK, VTPS ROAD, BHEEMARAJU GUTTA, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT, AP. 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VUDA BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR, NEAR HSBC BANK, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530003. 7. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, AP. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AT MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530002. 8. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, , VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AT MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530002 ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent withdrawing the financial support to the 4th respondent school and not extending the right of management of the 4th respondent school by the 3rd respondent by renewing the Agreement for further period and not complying with condition 18 of the Memorandum of Agreement i.e., 2 academic years prior notice before closure of the school as arbitrary, illegal and violative of right to education of the students of the 4th respondent school stated in Article 21-A of the Constitution and contrary to the A.P.Education Act, 1982 and proceedings of the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Visakhapatnam vide Rc.No.869/A1/2019, dated 05-12-2019 and consequently direct the respondents and in particular the 2nd respondent to continue to run the 4th respondent school by providing necessary financial support etc., and further direct the 1st respondent to take over the management of the 4th respondent school as per the provisions of Section 60 of the A.P.Education Act, 1982, in the event of the 2nd respondent fails to run, and to pass such 4 SRK,J W.P.No.15570 of 2025 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 & 3 to continue to make admissions and run the 4th respondent school for current academic year i.e., 2025-2026, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Y SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 2. V SUBRAHMANYAM The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed to declare the action of 2nd respondent in withdrawing financial support to 4th respondent school and not extending the right of management of 4th respondent school by 3rd respondent by renewing the agreement for further period and not complying with condition No.18 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) i.e. 2 Academic Years’ prior notice before closure of the school, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct 2nd respondent to continue to run 4th respondent school by providing necessary financial support, etc., and further direct 1st respondent to take over the management of 4th respondent school as per the provisions of Section 60 of the A.P.Education Act, 1982, in the event 2nd respondent fails to run the school. 5 SRK,J W.P.No.15570 of 2025 2. Case of the petitioners is that 2nd respondent herein established a school from 1st class to 6th class in the name of Visakha Vimala Vidyalayam with the idea of extending education upto 10 + 2 stage in the succeeding years as per requirement and started working from 1984-85 year onwards. 2nd respondent invited 3rd respondent to manage and run the said school, for which 3rd respondent agreed to run and manage the said school subject to the condition of extending all financial support to it, by 2nd respondent, and both of them entered an MoA subject to the terms and conditions stated in it. Condition No.18 thereof clearly says that notwithstanding the provisions contained herein, respondents 2 and 3 shall be entitled to terminate the said agreement by giving 2 academic years’ notice in writing on either side. It shall, however, be open to the company to review, renegotiate, if necessary, the terms and conditions embodied in the MoA after a period of 5 years. It is further stated that the petitioners herein are the students studying various classes in the 4th respondent school. Besides the petitioners herein, there are nearly 974 students studying various classes. But, 2nd respondent, who established the school for the benefit of children of below poverty line, stopped giving financial support to run the school by 3rd respondent citing financial problems. It is further stated that 6th respondent imposed a condition while granting renewal of recognition which is to the effect that the school shall not be closed without giving 6 SRK,J W.P.No.15570 of 2025 notice to the parents, the District Educational Officer and competent authority, at least 6 months before. But, 2nd respondent has not followed the said statutory condition by giving prior 6 months’ notice before it is closed. Hence, closure of 4th respondent school is causing severe loss and damage, and the same detrimental to the interest of the students, who are not in a position to shift to other private schools by paying fee, etc. as they are poor and below poverty line. It is further stated that tenure of 3rd respondent to manage 4th respondent school came to an end by 31.05.2025 and 2nd respondent has not renewed the right of management of 4th respondent school, and respondents 3 and 4 are not admitting the students for academic year 2025-26, and the sudden decision of 2nd respondent of not providing necessary finance in continuing 4th respondent school and not extending the right of management of 4th respondent school by renewing the agreement with 3rd respondent, is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the Writ petition. 3. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that to provide educational facilities to children and dependents of employees of RINL, as a part of welfare amenities to the employees, an MoA was entered into, with 3rd respondent to run Telugu medium school ‘Visakha Vimala Vidyalayam’ for five years in the premises of RINL on 03.04.1986, and the school started functioning from Academic Year 1984-1985. With 7 SRK,J W.P.No.15570 of 2025 the aforesaid object, respondent No.2 came forward for a benevolent purpose and was granting some funds under the terms of the agreement, and the administration and running of the school is sole responsibility of 3rd respondent. Clause No.18 of the MoA i.e. closure notice of two years, is applicable while operating MoA for five years. The last renewal of the MoA was from June, 2019 to May, 2024 only. Thereafter, the MoA terms were extended for one year only from 01.06.2024 to 31.05.2025. While entering MoA in 2019, it was mentioned to take steps by the school management to increase revenue. Due to precarious financial condition of respondent No.2, 3rd respondent is advised to run the school on its own resources by increasing the revenue and become self-sustainable, and was advised to meet the expenditure from its own sources to run the school in future. Hence, issuance of notice, as averred, does not arise. It is further stated that respondent No.2 provided the school with infrastructure, buildings, furniture, equipment, electricity, water and other amenities for running the school for all these years, and a nominal rent of Rs.1/- per month is paid by 3rd respondent society for the school building. Electricity and water are provided by this respondent free of cost, apart from quarters and medical facilities to staff of 3rd respondent society. It is further stated that efforts have been made by respondent No.2 for opening the school. In this regard, a meeting was conducted on 23.06.2025 by respondent No.2 with school management, teacher’s 8 SRK,J W.P.No.15570 of 2025 representatives and parents, and deliberated the issue of opening the school, and it was agreed to issue letters to respondent No.3 to obtain permission to open the School from the District Educational Officer concerned till W.P. No.14568 of 2025 is disposed of, and respondent No.2 is in the process of issuing letters to obtain permission for reopening of the school to respondent No.3. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 5. The Writ Petition is filed for a direction to 2nd respondent to continue to run 4th respondent school by providing necessary financial support, etc., and further direct 1st respondent to take over the management of 4th respondent school as per the provisions of Section 60 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, in the event 2nd respondent fails to run the school. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that an agreement was entered into, by 2nd respondent with 3rd respondent- society to run 4th respondent school for five years from the academic year 1984-85 in the premises of RashtriyaIspat Nigam Limited on 03.04.1986. The object of the same was to provide educational facilities to children and dependents of employees of RINL, as a part of welfare amenities to the employees. A perusal of the record goes to show that the last renewal of the MoA was from June, 2019 to May, 2024 only, and 9 SRK,J W.P.No.15570 of 2025 thereafter, the MoA terms were extended for one year only from 01.06.2024 to 31.05.2025. 6. From the counter affidavit, it is clear that respondent No.2 provided the school with infrastructure, buildings, furniture, equipment, electricity, water and other amenities for running the school for all these years, and a nominal rent of Rs.1/- per month is paid by 3rd respondent society for the school building, and that electricity and water are provided by this respondent free of cost, apart from quarters and medical facilities to staff of 3rd respondent society. 7. It the contention of learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent that on account of precarious financial condition, 2nd respondent is not in a position to run the school, and more over, the period of MoA also expired, and therefore, it advised 3rd respondent to run the school on its own resources by increasing the revenue, and that the issuance of notice before closure, as stated by the petitioners, is not in the MoA renewed recently. It is his submission that since the issue involves financial implications, the direction, as sought by the petitioners, cannot be issued. According to him, 2nd respondent came forward for a benevolent purpose and granted some funds under the terms of the agreement, and the administration and running of the school is sole responsibility of 3rd respondent, and the MoA is not extended beyond 31.05.2025. In view of the fact that the MoA between respondents 2 and 3 ended by 31.05.2025 10 SRK,J W.P.No.15570 of 2025 and since it is a policy matter involving financial implications, 2nd respondent cannot be directed to extend any financial support for running 4th respondent school beyond the period covered by the MoA. 8. However, the averments in the counter affidavit that efforts have been made by 2nd respondent for opening the school, and in this regard, a meeting was conducted on 23.06.2025 by 2nd respondent with school management, teacher’s representatives and parents, and deliberated the issue of opening the school, and it was agreed to issue letters to respondent No.3 to obtain permission to open the School from the District Educational Officer concerned till W.P. No.14568 of 2025 is disposed, and 2ndrespondent is in the process of issuing letters to obtain permission for reopening of the school to respondent No.3, are recorded, and it is made clear that it is for the management of 2nd respondent to take a policy decision as to whether to extend financial support to 4th respondent school. 9. Therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ______________ ___ JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY 20th August, 2025. Sj/DRK 11 SRK,J W.P.No.15570 of 2025 142 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 15570 of 2025 Date: 20.08.2025 Sj/DRK