IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 617 OF 2025 Between: M/s. Barfani Educational Society, Rep by its Correspondent Sri. Y. Akshaz Krishna, Ramaraopeta, Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary School Education Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh Venkatadri Towers, opp. DGP Office Besides Happy Resorts Atmakur, Mangalagiri, Guntur Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education Opposite ZPH School, Srinivasa Nagar, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530048 4. The District Educational Officer, Konda Koppaka, Anakapalli Andhra Pradesh - 531019. 5. The Deputy Educational Officer, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Mandal Educational Officer, Narsipatnam Mandal, Anakapalli District, Andhra Pradesh. 7. Rushi Valley School, Rep. by its Corrrespondent, Sri A Satya Varaha Sreenivas, Baligattam, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. (R7 is impleaded in Writ Petition & Affidavit as per Court’s Order dt. 11/02/2025 in lA 3 of 2025) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court ,may be pleased to issue appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of ^ W declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing the impugned speaking orders vide Rc No. 737/A2/2024, Dated 17-09-2024 in rejecting the representation of the Petitioner dated 04-09-2024 seeking opening permission for classes I to X stating that in view of the Rule provision of the case of the Petitioner cannot be considered and further stating that it is the 1st Respondent, Government who is competent for grant of opening permission to the Petitioner institution as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and violative of provisions of AP Education Act, 1982 and Rules framed thereunder and consequently set aside impugned speaking order vide Rc No. 737/A2/2024; Dated 17-09-2024 the same. lA 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 to suspend the impugned speaking order vide Rc. No. 737/A2/2024i Dated 17-09-2024 pending Writ Petition in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permission to the Petitioner institution duly considering the proposal submitted by the Petitioner and the representation dated 30-05-2024 and 04-09-2024, pending Writ Petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION grant opening Counsel for the Respondent NoJ: SRI A CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 617 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s; ....pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4‘^ Respondent in issuing the impugned speaking orders vide Rc.No.737/A2/2024, dated 17.09.2024 in rejecting the representation of the Petitioner dated 04.09.2024 seeking opening permission for classes 1 to X stating that in view of the Rule provision of the case of the petitioner cannot be considered and further stating that it is the 1®* Respondent, Government who is competent for grant of opening permission to the Petitioner institution as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and violative of provisions of AP Education Act, 1982 and Rules framed there under and consequently set aside impugned speaking order vide Rc.No. 737/A2/2024, dated 17.09.2024 the same and issue such other writ or order or direction 2 2. The petitioner herein made a representation to the District Educational Officer on 30.05.2024 with a request to consider the commencement of classes at Sri Vidyanjali High School, ‘Y’ For not considering the representation of the petitioner by the 4'^ respondent-District Junction, Balligattam, Anakapalli. Educational Officer, the petitioner herein filed Writ Petition vide W.P. No.11436 of 2024. On direction of this Court, the petitioner herein filed a fresh representation dated 04.09.2024 to the respondents. On receiving such representation, the 4**^ respondent has examined and delivered his decision vide impugned order dated 3. 17.09.2024, which is assailed in the present Writ Petition, that the District Educational Officer is not the competent authority to dispose of the representation and the petitioner may approach the competent authority for the relief. 4. The learned Designate Senior Counsel Sri N. Subba Rao would submit that the 4^'' respondent is not authority to take decision on the representation made by the petitioner, the 4 th respondent-District Education Officer ought to have been forwarded to the competent authority for the decision. 3 5. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the prayer in Writ Petition itself is to consider the representation filed by the petitioner by the 4*'^ respondent-District Educational Officer, accordingly, the 4 addressed the representation, the same cannot be found fault with. respondent-District Educational Officer 6. Be that as it may, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following direction. The petitioner herein is directed to file a fresh application to the competent authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and the competent authority is directed to examine the said application and give a decision after considering or in pursuant to section 20 of the Education Act and under Section 6 of the Right to Education Act. and address the issue raised by the petitioner herein for establishment of new school in accordance with law and communicate the said decision 7. to the petitioner herein within a period of eight weeks from the date of application made by the petitioner herein and the respondents are directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Right to Education Act as well as the Andhra Pradesh Education Act and the Rules framed therein. The order 4 impugned in the Writ Petition of District Education Officer does not preclude the competent authority to address the issue afresh. 8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINJVAS REGISTRAR OFFICER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT sEcfiSj To 1. The Principal Secretary School Education Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh Venkatadri Towers, opp. DGP Office Besides Happy Resorts Atmakur, Mangalagiri, Guntur Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education Opposite ZPH School, Srinivasa Nagar, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530048 4. The District Educational Officer, Konda Koppaka, Anakapalli Andhra Pradesh - 531019. 5. The Deputy Educational Officer, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Mandal Educational Officer, Narsipatnam Mandal, Anakapalli District, Andhra Pradesh. 7. One CC to Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri A Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC; 9. Two CCs to GP for School Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. Three CD Copies 1 TF HIGH COURT TF TL DATED:11/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.617 of 2025 ANO/y^ * 0 6 MAR 2fl?5 m S. Co. . Current aeciton DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS HIGH COURT